Chelsea’s baby Charlotte is already on the job. The little babe is already hard at work to help her memaw on her mother’s side.
What has the little one done? Well, like a brilliant comic, like a masterful symphonic conductor, it’s all in the timing. Little Charlotte arrived just in time.
Consider, the latest polls that show Obama Dimocrats about to lose badly this November. Consider the latest Barack Obama “blame the staff” performance against the nation’s intelligence services. Consider the beheadings in the middle east and the beheading in Oklahoma which are all the product of brazen terrorists. Consider the dried rose that is the “War on Women” tactic and the rise of the “security moms”. Consider too all the worldwide Hell breaking loose, which now includes Hong Kong. Consider all that and the consequences for the November 2014 elections which are now a teensy-weensy bit more than a month away (even as early voting in Iowa has started and early voting starts in some other states this very week). Would you want to be tied to this mess?
That, in short, has been the predicament Hillary Clinton has found herself in. A lot of kooks on the left have been on full whine lately that Hillary is not doing much to help Obama Dimocrats this election cycle. And for once the Kooks are correct.
Aside from some measured assistance to those that supported Hillary in 2008 Bill and Hillary have not exactly been tearing up the runways for this November’s elections. Bill and Hillary, Hillary and Bill, are paying political debts and doing some pro forma events. But they are certainly not engaged in a whirlwind tour for Dims in which they would only twist themselves into a loser narrative.
That was the dream. The dream of those that stabbed Hillary in the back and called Bill Clinton a “racist” in 2008 was that popular Bill and popular Hill would carry their water up the hill in state after state in a series of ceaseless campaign events. After that the same vipers would not care if Hill and Bill rolled down the hill soaked from the pail of water they carried.
That is what Hillary and Bill were supposed to do. Hillary and Bill were supposed to stop the disaster by covering for Barack H. Obama. But Hillary and Bill must not take the blame from the coming disaster authored and starring Barack H. Obama. Why should they?
Now the leftist kooks are all atwitter and noisy and angry that Bill and Hill and Hill and Bill find themselves otherwise occupied. Barack Obama is as welcome in many states as Ebola at a sauna. Bill and Hill are popular but where are they?
Now, little Charlotte has come along and Hillary and Bill have a perfect excuse to do as little as possible this October as early voting hits full stride across the nation. It’s not like Hillary is about to freeze-frame herself as Whistler’s Mother. Both Bill and Hill will do some events to keep the yapping dogs at bay but mostly they now can say “the baby”. Ah, “the baby”. “Sorry, we’re busy, you see…uh… the baby….”
The discussion of the crazy peoples view featured comrades fresh from the climate change march in New York and assorted OFA kooks. These kooks indulged themselves with attacks against Hillary Clinton and in praise of Elizabeth Warren.
There was one person, who appropriately self-identifies as “Insipid”, who began by attacking good ol’ Big Pink. Yup, our cute pink website. Well, this Insipid person claimed to have been an Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. “Insipid” knowing the full facts about Baracko back in 2008 immediately ignored the facts about Barack H. Obama and his race-baiting misogynistic campaign and “HAPPILY” went whole hog for bam-bam.
After a bit of Hillary bashing from the supposed supporter and then claims that there are no differences between Hillary and Baracko “Insipid” got testy with the other kooks. It then got ugly. You will have to read the full exchange for the full laughs and to observe what happens when even the slightest kind words amidst a lot of bashing of Hillary will elicit from the Barack Obama crowd. Oh, and don’t miss the back and forth about Hillary not doing much during this 2014 election. “Insipid” argues Hillary is all out for Dims but the truth is Hillary is mostly all out of this election cycle. Smart lady.
The insipid and the clueless cult of Barack Obama witnessed at that comedy site are not alone. Those brainiacs are not even the most dangerous. Consider the Rosemary’s Babies a.k.a. Occupy Wall Street. Remember them?
Occupy Wall Street posed as an egalitarian group of pure democracy advocates who made decisions from the ground up, direct democracy. Remember how they used to say they had no leaders? Ha! We mocked them repeatedly at the time. Occupy Wall Street was a phony Obama re-election operation disguised as a populist movement. Once the election was over and the attacks on Wall Street Mitt Romney no longer needed Occupy Wall Street descended into an even bigger joke.
The People Who Organized Occupy Wall Street Are Now Suing Each Other
The movement descends into litigation. “We can either go and beat him up or we can go to court.” [snip]
WASHINGTON — Activists who organized the dormant Occupy Wall Street movement are suing another activist for control of the main Twitter account, and one of the plaintiffs says there was no other option but to turn to litigation to solve the dispute.
The conflict centers around @OccupyWallStNYC, one of the main Twitter feeds that distributed information during the movement’s heyday in 2011. The OWS Media Group filed a lawsuit against organizer Justin Wedes on Wednesday, which is also the third anniversary of the beginning of Occupy Wall Street. The group, led by activist Marisa Holmes, is seeking control of the Twitter account as well as $500,000 in damages.
The Twitter account, which used to be shared among several activists, is now under the control of Wedes, who explained his decision to take over the Twitter feed in a blog post in August:
In the kingdom of the blind kooks the one-eyed kook is king. So much for “no leaders”.
The kook kingdom is now underground and in full JournoList mode. You do remember JournoList right? It was the listserv of “impartial” journalists that protected Barack Obama in 2008 and attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain and especially Sarah Palin.
Emails sent by liberal activists and obtained by The Hill reveal significant dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
The critical messages about the former first lady show that she has a long way to go to assuage skepticism from influential voices on the left.
The Hill reviewed hundreds of emails from a progressive members only Google group called the “Gamechanger Salon,” a forum where nearly 1,500 activists, strategists and journalists debate issues and craft messaging campaigns.
The group includes prominent Democrats, Sierra Club officials, journalists who work for The Huffington Post and The Nation magazine, senior union representatives, leaders at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the president of NARAL.
Over a thousand kooks all out to protect Barack Obama and attack anyone who mocks the ONE. It’s 2008 all over again.
Barack Obama and his minions will do everything in their power to destroy Hillary Clinton and make sure she does not get the nomination in 2016 let alone the presidency.
There is no way that the crazed Obama left is going to go back to the hated paradigm of clinton-bush-clinton-bush interrupted by Obama for clinton-bush years. The crazed left minions might think they love Hillary Clinton now, but wait until their overlords decide they will oppose Hillary and the minions will fall back into the Hillary hate line.
The crazed Obama left is not going to have Hillary Clinton, THE CLINTONS, be the culmination of their revolution by having Hillary inherit the mantle of Obama. The left might be crazed but it is not stupid and the leadership of the totalitarian Obama left is not about to surrender its power to Hillary and Bill and Terry and the hated DLC.
The President of NARAL is part of this secret smear campaign. In 2008 NARAL endorsed John Edwards for president in 2008. NARAL endorsed Barack Obama once Edwards was out. NARAL endorse a pro-choice woman for president? NEVER. Now NARAL, often helped by Hillary Clinton, is part of a secret group to smear Hillary. You better watch your back and learn Hillary.
Clinton’s too much of a hawk, too cozy with Wall Street, hasn’t spoken out enough on climate change, and will be subject to personal questions and criticisms, members of the group stated in the emails.
The existence of the group was reported earlier this year by the conservative outlet MediaTrackers.org, but this is the first time the emails have become public.
“[A] Clinton presidency undos [sic] all our progress and returns the financial interests to even more prominence than they currently have,” Melissa Byrne, an activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said in a November 2013 email.
Melissa knows when she is about to be made more extinct that she already is. All her comrades will occupy the same tombs. The Kooks know we are right and they are slated for a beheading, ISIS/Oklahoma style:
The progressives expressed an appetite for an alternative to Clinton to teach her — and those from the centrist wing of the party — a lesson.
Liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has repeatedly said she won’t run for president, but some on the left aren’t convinced.
“The establishment Dems need to be punished, and the best way for that to happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the primary on a populist message,” Carl Gibson, a progressive activist and writer for Occupy.com, wrote in one email.
Even though months have passed since the emails were sent, the sentiment remains.
It’s almost like a 2008 reunion. Anyone remember Mike Lux? He’s the kook that started OpenLeft because other anti-Hillary sites were too tame. We used to mock OpenLeft as NothingLeft and now the nothing left is back:
Mike Lux, a prominent strategist and an active member of the group, told The Hill that the concerns haven’t changed and operatives “are probably more worried at this point rather than less.”
The hate is strong in this troll.
As MediaTrackers.org has written it is not just Occupy Wall Street totalitarians on Gamechanger Salon. CNN, Reuters and other Big Media contributors participate in these secret cabals of corrupt commentators who wish to usurp the people’s political process with their schemes and smears.
Conversations with a half-dozen of the members of Gamechanger Salon this week confirm that the angst within parts of the progressive movement has only grown.
“There’s good reason to believe the discontent remains the same,” Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America and another group member, told The Hill.
Much of the exasperation with Clinton hinged on the former New York senator’s vote for the Iraq War, which is still toxic for many progressives. Clinton has since said her vote was a mistake.
Charles Lenchner, a progressive operative and executive director of Organizing 2.0, said Clinton — and anyone else who voted for the Iraq War — is “tainted.”
“And personally, I would like to see a Democratic Party where folks who enabled George Bush to drag the country into a permanent war are punished at the ballot box,” he said in an interview.
Ryan Clayton, a left-leaning commentator and strategist, wrote in a July 2013 email, “The more Progressives I talk to, the more people tell me that they’ll never forgive her for voting for the Iraq War… and won’t even vote for her in the general.”
Another area of irritation is the economic policies instituted by her husband, former President Clinton, that some progressives say contributed to the financial collapse. Lux, a former Clinton administration aide, wrote in an email that while he didn’t think she was involved in crafting economic policy as first lady, he’s concerned about her relationship with Wall Street.
“I also came to know how close she was to the pro-Wall Street forces inside the administration and out, and the downsides on foreign policy are all very real. So I will hesitate for a long time before jumping into her campaign,” Lux wrote in a group email.
Byrne, the Occupy activist, later declared in an email this year: “I have little respect for decisions Sec. Clinton has made in her career and I have a different value set from her.”
One of Clinton’s biggest critics among the group is Guy Saperstein, a major Democratic donor and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team.
In emails, Saperstein called a report out in December of last year that Clinton offered a “reassuring” message to Goldman Sachs executives “horrific,” and slammed her for “ducking a lot of issues, like the Keystone pipeline.”
He also raised questions about her leadership at the State Department and referenced “the type of intimidation the Clintons want to quietly promote [in the velvet glove, of course].”
Saperstein expressed concerns that voters would begin to speculate over her personal life and relationship with her husband.
“None of that would be helpful to her candidacy,” he wrote.
It’s all there. The Hillary-Dillery-Dyke innuendo from Saperstein. The economic “values” arguments from Occupy Wall Street types who are busy fighting for dollars in the courts near Wall Street. And then there is the foolishness about the Iraq vote we answered years ago. And why voting against the AUMF would have been foolish we have also discussed back in 2007.
What is most comic about the Iraq vote and the left is the amnesia about others (Botox John Kerry for instance) who voted for the AUMF and those who supported a “yes” vote (um, Al Gore a favorite of the nothingleft).
What do these kooks really want? They want Hillary to bow down to them in the same way Barack Obama bows down to foreign despots.
In interviews and emails, members of the group expressed a near-universal concern — that still prevails — that if Clinton doesn’t take steps to appease the progressive wing of the party, it could be damaging to her chances in 2016.
Gibson wrote in an email, “another establishment pick from a political dynasty family will drive folks to the green party.”
Clayton suggested in an email from January of this year that without a more liberal alternative to Clinton, the party would splinter: “if we have no Progressive candidate with legitimate street cred about taking effective bold action to face the vital issues we’re confronting as a country today (which is pretty much Warren and … cricket, cricket…) in the race for Presidency, that means the abandonment of the Democratic Party by the reemerging and resurgent Left in America.” [snip]
“They’ll either vote for the Green Party of just sit out. That’s a really big aspect of progressive voters’ strategy” to have their voices heard, he said.
Ha! They’re threatening to go PUMA! News to the crackpot left: your species of PUMA has long been extinct. They died off with Ralph Nader in 2000.
What the crackpot nothingleft will not accept is that it is over for them. Their golden calf, Barack Obama is nothing but political Ebola. Even the Republicans realize it.
Throughout the party’s infrastructure, Republicans say that linking Clinton with Obama, especially labeling her possible 2016 campaign as “Obama’s Third Term,” is the most potent attack. [snip]
“Hillary Clinton has a Barack Obama problem,” reads a lengthy research document that will go out to GOP pundits, strategists, conservative organizations and media members Tuesday. “No matter how many of her advisors whisper to reporters that she’s different from Barack Obama, Americans still know who she is: Barack Obama Part Deux.”
The document lists “10 Reasons Why Clinton 2016 = Obama’s Third Term,” including her praise for Obama as she left the State Department in 2013, her role in his first four years of foreign policy and Clinton’s support of Obamacare.
“Looking ahead to 2016, it’s critical that Obama’s 3rd Term is an element of the broader narrative defining Sec. Clinton, especially since she still has a higher approval than he does,” Tim Miller, the group’s director, said in a statement to CNN. [snip]
Therefore, it is something they plan to continue in the coming months and possibly years.
Democrats, too, are concerned about the attack line. In August, some close to Clinton told CNN that labeling the former secretary of state as the successor to Obama’s legacy was a possible problem.
Obama is political Ebola. Hillary should do as we suggested with even more force and vigor. That’s the way to win.
Update:Scott Brown gets it – “You know, I thought a lot about this and I do support arming them. But I’m frustrated with the incoherent policy that led us to this point.”
That one ad is an attack on Obama’s illegal immigration amnesty plans combined with an attack on Obama’s weakness against terrorism along with a visual reminder about Brown’s military background designed to appeal to “security moms.” The tough and truthful ad ties Ebola Obama to Senator Shaheen.
Not tough? Barack Obama brought his brand of sleeping pills to the United Nations today. “Incoherent” and “weak” are insufficient to describe the bumbling drone. The president seems to be thinking that he’s playing a game of “Risk” with his high school friends in Hawaii.
Today’s UN soporific is proof that Obama is unhinged from reality. Obama demands that the world see things his way and if not… well… there will be another speech. And if bombs have to be dropped because of “security mom” votes needed to win in this November’s elections, so be it… but don’t worry ’cause Obama isn’t serious about force. Yeah, Obama rebukes Russia, demands action against ISIS, invokes Ferguson in UN speech but no world leader believes Obama or thinks Obama is relevant or trustworthy.
Wanna know who understands force? The guys that chop off heads understand force and fear. They laugh at Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton should have resigned. Leon Panetta should have resigned. The Joint chiefs should have resigned. Obama’s War should finally end the notion that any of the above should have resigned in protest or for whatever noble or principled reason.
Hillary, Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in normal times with a normal American president should have resigned in protest over the bumbling, stumbling, the lies, the boobery, the treacheries. But imagine if any of these had resigned in protest. What sycophant, what loon, what contrary-to-American-interests Samantha Power/Susan Rice types would Barack Obama have appointed in their stead? Picture a Ralph Nader in uniform promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for some idea of that alternate future scenario.
Hillary and Bill Clinton, Leon Panetta, Bob Gates, the American military top brass all advised Barack Obama to arm the Syrian rebels at a time that Barack Obama made tough threats about “red lines”. Ted Cruz, with good reason, worried that Obama’s “red lines” would turn the United States air force into an pro-Al Qaeda air force.
The problem was that once Barack Obama made the “red line” threat he had to put up or shut up. Syria stepped over the “red lines” that led to an Obama display of his yellow streak and Obama blamed the world for his own empty words. The advice to arm Syrian “rebels” was a way to keep a threat, wise or unwise, by an American president credible. “Speak softly but carry a big stick” was perverted by Obama into “boast loudly and stroke a small flaccid dick”. The advice to arm Syrian “rebels” was a stinky fragrance out of a sewer of bad smells.
In a sense this advice was a variation of the smart Ronald Reagan strategy during the Iran/Iraq War of “arm the loser”. It is a strategy of “let them kill each other” and if anything good comes of this then good for us and let’s keep it going. Instead we are now involved in yet another exercise of nation-building. That is exactly what the left lionized Barack Obama would not do. Instead we have what David Gergen has called another version of the ObamaCare rollout.
At the time the allegedly “moderate” Syrian rebels could have been supplied with arms. Then it was a matter of what these alleged “moderates” did with those arms and a determination of who the “moderate” rebels were. By “moderates” the distinction is comparable to the East Coast versus West Coast fights of American rappers. Think “Bloods” versus “Crips”.
If the “moderates” turned out to be “moderates” in any sense then the arms could continue to flow. If supply of weapons to these “moderates” turned out to be a mistake then the supply of weapons could have been turned off quickly. That was the advice from Hillary, Panetta, Gates, and the Joint Chiefs.
Obama called that advice a “fantasy” and later “horsesh*t”. It was the kettle calling the pot black. Now Obama is become what Obama mocked. Obama policy is become what Obama derided.
Now we have the worst of all scenarios. Obama’s “fantasy” has become Obama’s War.
The first American president under the Constitution, George Washington, warned in his farewell address against foreign entanglements such as we face now in the Middle East. Any claim to clarity of purpose in Obama’s War is shattered by the intricate analyses of Shiites and Sunnis and factions within factions of terrorist groups and tribes and Imams and customs and sorts of lunacies we should not have anything to do with.
George W. Bush led the country into an unwise war in Iraq. The beneficiary of that war was Iran. The main beneficiary of Obama’s War is Assad of Syria as well as Putin of Russia. Iran is also smiling. There are plenty of oil despots also happy. America used to have client states in the Middle East to project our power and interests. Now, because of Barack Obama the United States is now the client state to despots and tyrants.
It was Obama’s yellow streak of cowardice that led to Obama’s War in Syria. This cannot be blamed on George W. Bush.
Because of Barack Obama’s appeasements, obeisance to Muslim despots, and sweet words to the “Muslim world” the darkest of dark forces have been let loose. ISIS is a genuine threat to the United States. ISIS is enabled by Barack Obama. No bomb drops will change the fact that ISIS was birthed and teated by Barack Obama who thought of them as junior varsity collegians he could entreat like a lonely faculty member in the Harvard cafeteria.
In 2008 Hillary Clinton and those of us who questioned Barack Obama’s lack of, or warped “naive” world view were attacked as racists. Now Politico goes full racist:
President Barack Obama is back at the United Nations this week, but the more peaceful world he saw emerging just a year ago is looking like a distant, even naive, dream.
“We’ve also worked to end a decade of war … shifting away from a perpetual war footing,” Obama told the U.N. delegates and fellow heads of state last September. “The world is more stable than it was five years ago.”
Just in the past few months, the rise of the brutal Islamic State terrorist group has lured the U.S. back into military action in the Mideast, Russia has annexed part of Ukraine and a deadly virus has rampaged across Africa, killing thousands and threatening to bring down governments there.
In each crisis, Obama has been faulted for dithering while the situation grew worse and turning aside opportunities to act in the hope of assembling an international response that has so far proved inadequate.
“He’s in a much worse position, without a doubt, than a year ago. … You’ve got a world on fire,” said former Mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. “The presidency is all about managing disorder and unruliness and managing perceptions so that the world’s not seen as being in chaos. He’s not been able to convey a strategy for dealing for all this, so I think it’s much grimmer for him a year later.”
The left propped the bag of feces called Barack Obama as if it was a golden calf. Now the chickens have come home to roost:
Indeed, much of the past week was a reminder of foreign policy failures.
Last year, Obama pushed U.S. efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict only to see peace talks fall apart and relations escalate into full-scale war as Israel responded to rocket attacks from Gaza with incursions by Israeli ground forces and artillery shelling.
Talks with Iran over its nuclear program are continuing in New York this week, but they may be headed for a kind of stalemate. The Obama administration is reportedly exploring stopgap measures that might satisfy it but seem unlikely to be palatable to Israel or its supporters on Capitol Hill.
And Tuesday, Obama is scheduled to speak at a U.N. session on climate change, an area in which his administration stumbled diplomatically early in his presidency and has since struggled to craft meaningful policies that can pass muster with Congress.
On Wednesday, the president delivers his main speech to the General Assembly before leading the Security Council meeting on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He’ll also host an event on open government before he wraps up his visit on Thursday with a high-level meeting on the Ebola epidemic.
This will be the second time Barack Obama assumes the role of king of the Security Council. No other American president has done this. Its as if Barack Obama does not want to be the American president anymore and has moved on to run the United Nations world. Obama should resign and move on to his new job at the East River.
With his new offensive against Islamic State terrorists in Syria, Barack Obama has a chance to revive his presidency, but the only way he can do that is to become a brand-new president, one who will be almost unrecognizable to his supporters. Obama must go from being the president who was elected to end wars—his most treasured self-image—to the president who finally leads one effectively. [snip]
For Barack Obama, what is happening now no longer falls into the category of cleaning up old wars. This is no longer the war of the Afghan “surge,” which was mainly intended to end a war that was already underway. Or Obama’s aggressive policy of launching covert drone strikes and special operations missions against al Qaeda and its affiliates. This is a wholly new war, Obama’s very own, and it is out in the open.
Even if the skeptics are right and the airstrikes prove insufficient to diminish the threat from ISIS the subsequent dispatch of American forces to do a time-limited job of clearing out the bad guys is likely to stir even more patriotic fervor.
The president’s leadership role during this fight has the potential to pump up his public approval and that will benefit several Democrats locked in close senate races. [snip]
An upswing in the president’s approval rating as the nation gets in line behind the commander-in-chief could tip the outcome of a political fight now based on voter turnout and last minute advertising.
The left on Obama’s War is the neo-cons they deplored when it was “Bush’s War”
Next up? Boots. More lies and broken promises by Barack Obama are next. Boots. Boots on the ground. Production for use. Boots.
The news this morning made for dramatic, hysterical, headlines but we thought it was a joke. We thought some idiot in the AP breaking news desk accidentally hit the wrong “publish” button thereby old 2008 news was regurgitated as new news:
An apparently mentally disturbed man Friday evening jumped the fence of the White House, scurried across the North Lawn, raced up the steps the North Portico, and barged through the unlocked door of the executive mansion.
Pardon us but at first we thought this was a 2008 story about Barack Obama’s occupation of the White House. For one brief, glorious moment the last several years of misery and horror evaporated as a bad nightmare. For some seconds we praised security forces for keeping that Boob Barack at bay.
The news story unfortunately was not about brave security forces keeping the nation safe from the lunatic Boob. The story was not about Barack Obama. Sad. The story was about some mentally disturbed man other than Barack Obama.
By way of excuse for our silly thoughts about this story as old news we must state that we simply do not understand why anyone would attempt to go to the White House. Why?
Surely this home invasion was not about a visit with Barack Obama. No one is that stupid. Everyone, even lunatics, know that that last place to find Barack Obama is at the White House. Unless there is a tax-payer paid event for “celebrities” and other moochers Barack Obama is not to be found at work.
Sure enough it was soon confirmed that Barack Obama was not at the White House but on another mini-vacation from his many other vacations as he prepares for future vacations and future retirement.
So why did Omar J. Gonzales, that’s the name of the man, jump the White House fence? Why? Well, not to be too politically incorrect but we came up with a bevy of reasons.
Potential Reason #1: Omar J. Gonzales is an advocate/activist for illegal immigration amnesty. Perhaps Gonzales wished to demonstrate that no fence can block the righteous cause of people breaking laws and doing as they wish and going where they wish.
Potential Reason #2: Omar J. Gonzales is against illegal immigration amnesty and wanted to demonstrate that fences on the border can help catch those whose very first act on American soil violates American law. As Charles Krauthammer once observed ‘If Fences Don’t Work, Why Is There One Around the White House?’
Potential Reason #3: Forget Gonzales and take a look at that first name. OMAR? Geez, maybe this was an ISIS terrorist wanting to shake Barack Obama’s hands or leave a present for the vacationer-in-chief. ISIS and the world-wide terrorist movement[s] have so much to be grateful for Obama’s ISIS Tap Dance it just might be worth their while to say ‘howdy-do and thankie you’ to Barack.
Potential Reason #4: Maybe there is more to “OMAR” than is apparent at first glance. Maybe Omar is a disguise. Maybe Omar is an American official or an American ex-official’s desperate last minute attempt to leave a massage to Barack about the damage he is causing. Maybe Omar is Leon Panetta?????
Can Obama Keep His Generals in Check in the War Against ISIS?
The president promised no combat troops to fight ISIS, but his top general says he may recommend them. Why Obama and his commanders are not on the same page for the new war.
In his major address explaining America’s new war against ISIS, President Obama pledged that there would be no U.S. combat troops. On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he may recommend ground forces in the future.
The White House is seeking to gloss over the rift between the president and his top general, but it is clear that just below the waterline Obama is not on the same page as the commanders who will be leading the new fight. U.S. military officials and members of Congress have complained privately for weeks that Obama appears unwilling to commit the resources necessary to achieve his aim of defeating ISIS.
Hey, just who the blazes is this Omar??? Could Omar be “Gen. Lloyd Austin, the general in charge of the military command that includes Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan”? Is Omar John Allen, the guy chosen by Obama that is supposed to run this latest war?
Allen came out for destroying ISIS long before Obama. On June 12, following the president’s decision to send some military advisers to Iraq after ISIS took over the country’s second-largest city, Allen praised Obama’s decision to engage the ISIS threat in Iraq to Defense One, but he also said, “I vote for sooner and we must strike them with a hard blow.” At the time, Obama ruled out airstrikes and instead sent military advisers to assess the state of Iraq’s military.
In an August 20 op-ed for the same publication, Allen wrote that ISIS “must be destroyed and we must move quickly to pressure its entire ‘nervous system,’ break it up, and destroy its pieces.”
Ray Kimball, an Army strategist who worked on Allen’s staff in Afghanistan and stressed he was speaking only for himself, said, “You could certainly read his op-ed as being more expansive than what the president has authorized, but the fact that he has signed on to do this job I think speaks to what he believes can be done within the parameters of the current policy.”
But others who have worked with Allen said they thought Obama’s vision for the war did not meet the objectives Allen laid out in his op-ed.
According to reports from Capitol Hill “Several senators emerged from Tuesday’s hearing confused about Obama’s war strategy.” Many see the rift between the sometimes occupant of the White House and American military leadership. Maybe some prankster in the Pentagon came up with the idea of sending Omar the messenger on a weekend to seek out and explore Obama’s strange new world and boldly go where none of them has gone before.
Confusion? Confused? Yup that about sums it up. Obama ran against nation building but now appears only willing to fight ISIS if Iraq agrees to Obama’s notions of nation building. Obama ran against Hillary’s vote for the AUMF but now Obama insists that the AUMF is what gives his actions legal legitimacy.
Obama ran against what he vilified as war mongers but now Obama is a war monger. Or is Obama just pretending to be a war monger? Or is Obama just a boob sinking into a madness that will soon engulf us all?
Maybe Omar is the Obama of 2008 out to confront the Obama of today?
There’s evidence “the plan” has already failed. What is “the plan”? The Hill publishes their amazing scoop today in a most breathless manner:
Democrats Have a Plan to Overcome Obama in Red States [snip]
With his national approval ratings mired in the low 40s seven weeks out from the Nov. 4 elections, Senate Democrats are well aware of the anchor President Barack Obama is proving to be in the midterms. It’s clear party strategists have had to tailor their red-state strategies around that reality on a map already tilted against them, with three principles at the crux of Democrats’ path to defend seats in GOP-leaning and solidly Republican states where the majority will be won or lost.
As Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Guy Cecil outlined in an interview last week with CQ Roll Call, it’s imperative for Democrats in these states to remind voters why they supported the incumbent in the first place, to over-perform generic Democratic numbers and continue to fund persuasion efforts — along with getting out the vote — through Election Day. [snip]
In interviews on Capitol Hill last week, Democratic senators were adamant that their colleagues’ individual profiles could outweigh the inherent connection to the unpopular president, even as Republicans were exuding a growing sense that the majority is well within reach.
That’s it. That’s “the plan”. “The plan” is that in order to save Obama’s presidency they must keep the U.S. Senate under the current mismanagement and the plan to save Obama is to run away from Obama. Brilliant.
There is empirical evidence, also published today, that “the plan” has failed and will fail on election day. The evidence of the failed “plan” comes from New Hampshire.
Scott Brown, the former senator from Massachusetts who moved to New Hampshire to run in a more friendly environment, appears to be in a dead heat with Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a new poll shows.
A CNN/ORC International poll out Monday finds Shaheen and Brown tied among likely voters, with both obtaining the support of 48% among 735 voters surveyed. [snip]
One thing working in Shaheen’s favor is her high favorable ratings. More than half of likely voters – 54% — have a favorable view of the first-term incumbent, while Brown’s favorability is not as high. His rating currently sits at 46%.
What could be a drag on Shaheen, however, is New Hampshire residents’ opinion of the leader of her party. Thirty-eight percent of New Hampshire adults polled approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, while 60% disapprove. Throughout the campaign, Brown has sought to tie Shaheen to Obama.
Shaheen is under 50% which is most dangerous for an incumbent. The problem is Barack Obama.
The “plan” is supposed to save Barack Obama by saving the Senate by running away from Obama – IN RED STATES. However, Jeanne Shaheen is not a candidate in a red state but in New England New Hampshire. “I’m not Barack Obama” is not going to work anywhere. Even in New England New Hampshire Barack Obama kills more effectively than Ebola.
The strain of Ebola Obama will prove particularly deadly in red states.
It gets worse.
For a long time we have derided the entire premise, the Mistake In ’08, which led the Democratic Party establishment to dump Hillary Clinton in 2008 for Barack Obama and what we analyzed as the “situation comedy” demographics of his coalition.
Particularly laughable to us was the idea that young people would stick by Barack Obama’s party once they were hooked on voting for Obama. We argued that with a treacherous, inexperienced, Barack Obama at the helm it was only a matter of time before the iceberg ripped out the sides of the ship and that young people would realize their foolishness and abandon ship.
Now that the ISIS-berg and many other calamities have struck and the ship is waterlogged are young people still smoking the Hopium? Are young people still with Obama?
Young people, women, Latinos, African-Americans are collectively reaping what they collectively sowed in 2008 and 2012. That does not mean they will continue to burn their collective futures for the glory of their golden calf.
The New York Times says it is The Great Unraveling “Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?” It happened because the New York Times at times lied to protect Barack Obama and other times kept the truth buried or unpublished.
George W. Bush inadvisedly but successfully mustered a “coalition of the willing” at home and abroad to destroy Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Barack Obama’s uncertain kazoo call is scaring a “coalition of the kicking and screaming” abroad. In the United States the corrupt left that elected and reelected Barack Obama is also disintegrating into a “coalition of the kicking and screaming”.
Like faded “Hope and Change” posters advertising a long defunct circus Barack Obama is a tattered personality and politician even to his frat-house fan-boy liberal white base. These liberal left “creative class” loons stand aghast as they witness Messiah Obama – in of all places Iraq – wage war as a “unitary executive”. The “creative class” and the “coalition of the ascendant” are now the “coalition of the kicking and screaming” as they are dragged down to their fates by Barack Obama.
The Fairy Tale:
In 2008 Bill Clinton was denounced by Obama race-baiters as “racist” for saying that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq was the biggest “fairy tale” he ever heard. Dat no gud debil Bill Clinton was immediately called a “racist” by race-baiting creeps like Jim Clyburn as well as the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur Ted Kennedy. But now Obama’s “coalition of the kicking and screaming” witness for themselves what Bill Clinton meant.
“I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify, rather than further polarize, the country.
So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
But – it wasn’t true. Watch Bill Clinton’s entire remarks and it’s 100% clear as to what he’s referring to as “the biggest fairy tale” and it’s not Obama’s candidacy. Nor is it the notion, as Herbert claims, that “a campaign based on hope and healing could unify.” No, the “fairy tale” is the idea that Obama was consistently opposed to the war in Iraq. Clinton points out speeches that Obama made and votes he cast as a Senator. His comments strike me as neither bizarre nor rambling, as the Times had claimed.
No matter. When Hillary Clinton appeared on Meet the Press just prior to the South Carolina primary, the late Tim Russert led with the race card attack against Clinton, including the quote from Herbert’s New York Times piece. Russert even plays a selectively edited clip of Clinton’s comments, where he cuts out every single part of what Clinton says leaving only ‘this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
Russert follows this butchered video clip with the quote from South Carolina Senator and Congressional Black Caucus member James Clyburn that had also appeared in the Times; “To call that dream a fairytale, which Bill Clinton seem to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us.” Hillary Clinton tries to point out that Russert is not playing the entire clip, but he shuts her down and plays a quote from Donna Brazil expressing disappointment in Bill Clinton and his “tone.” Russert continues to filibuster relentlessly for a couple of minutes, quoting the New York Times.”
Bill Clinton should have included Obama’s entire preposterous candidacy as a “fairy tale” back in 2008 as we did. It’s taken this long but most Americans now agree with us about the repellant and divisive Obama:
The most troubling number for President Obama in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll is this one: Americans say 55 percent to 38 percent that he is more of a divider than a uniter.
That’s a reversal from last year, when Americans said 47-45 that Obama had done more to unite the country than divide it.
Of course, Obama also has become significantly more unpopular over that span, so it’s not surprising to see his “uniter” rating drop (and in fact, both numbers have dropped equally over the past 16 months). But the uniter/divider number stings more than most other measures of Obama’s leadership.
Why? Because this was the thing that put Obama on the map.
The Obama fairy tale about “uniter not divider” is in the trash along with his “composite character” autobiographical garbage books. The fairy tale of Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war was used to sell Obama to the gullible low information and leftist dreamers is also in the trash as Obama prepares the Obama War In Iraq.
The Domestic Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:
But it still is a war, isn’t it, Mr. Secretary Kerry?
“I think that’s the wrong terminology,” he sniffed yesterday. “What we are engaging in is a very significant counterterrorism operation.”
Does that make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?
It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.
Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?
Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?
To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”
Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.
The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counterterrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.
Maybe the left is silent because they are low information idiots? Consider them informed by this op-ed in the Obama love machine called the New York Times:
Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution
PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written. [snip]
Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.
Since ISIS poses a new problem for the president, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires him to seek a new mandate from Congress. [snip]
But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.
In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Obama Will Fight ISIS With George W. Bush’s Legal Theories
John Yoo: “Obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the Bush administration.” [snip]
Among those doubters is Obama himself, or at least the pre-presidential version.
In late 2007, as part of a candidate Q&A, Obama told Charlie Savage, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” And as Obama made clear in his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, this is not the case in Iraq or Syria. “I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That’s not what this is about.”
This is about prevention and preemption, exactly the sort of thing that candidate Obama said presidents were not authorized to do without congressional approval. [snip]
Instead, whether out of expediency or outlook, he appears to have altered his views on constitutional power, and in doing so found himself relying on the same theories he once criticized. [snip]
“What is remarkable,” Yoo told BuzzFeed News, “is not that Obama eventually had to exercise the powers of his predecessors to protect American national security, but that his party in Congress, and his allies in the media and the universities, have remained so silent about it.”
How Barack Obama is expanding presidential power — and what it means for the future [snip]]
Speaker John Boehner chided the Democrats: “Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change?” [snip]
“I taught constitutional law for 10 years,” Obama said in March 2008. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”
But interviews with academic, legal, and policy experts make clear Obama has done little to roll back Bush’s expansion of executive power — and that, instead, he’s added a few innovations of his own. [snip]
Many of Obama’s own controversial contributions cluster around one main theme: waiving, modifying, or refusing to enforce key provisions in laws dealing with domestic policy. And as he weighs a new executive action on immigration, he seems set to go further yet. In doing so, he’ll set new precedents that future presidents can cite for even more expansive action. [snip]
The problem for liberals is that there are many laws out there that conservative presidents dearly wish weren’t enforced. Indeed, the precedents Obama is setting “probably benefit conservative presidents who want to stop regulations and have a smaller agenda, to the extent it helps them gain control of the wider executive branch,” says Rudalevige, the Bowdoin professor.
So future Republican presidents will inevitably cite the new precedents Obama is setting to justify actions of their own. “I think Democrats are going to rue the day they did not push back against Obama on these things,” says Sollenberger, the University of Michigan professor. “Just as Republicans regretted the same thing when they didn’t push back against Bush.”
The response to all these warnings from the Obama left? One picture [HERE] tells the story.
Hillary Clinton and congressmen alike have called on Obama to arm Syria’s rebels. But the president fumed at lawmakers in a private meeting for suggesting he should’ve done more.
President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horseshit.” [snip]
Top Democratic lawmakers agreed with Corker and Clinton that doing more to support the moderate rebels would have at least had a chance of averting or mitigating the current crisis, which has now spread to large parts of Iraq as ISIS expands its newly declared Caliphate.
“We may never know for sure if ISIS’s decisions were encouraged by Obama’s choices in Syria. What we know for sure is that ISIS metastasized in Syria and was not deterred because of anything Obama said or did so far.” [snip]
In a New York Times interview published Aug. 8, Obama said that the idea arming the rebels would have made a difference had “always been a fantasy.”
“This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,” Obama said.
Clinton told The Atlantic in an interview published Aug. 10 that Obama’s “failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
In 2012, Clinton revealed that she and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had pushed a plan earlier that year to arm the Syrian rebels that was rejected by the White House. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later said they supported the plan at that time. Many lawmakers, including Corker and Engel, still support that plan and they agree with Clinton that Obama’s policy left a vacuum that ISIS rushed to fill.
“[ISIS’s threat in Iraq] is definitely tied to Syria because when the uprising started against Bashar al Assad, it was a movement of people wanting freedom and democracy in Syria, it wasn’t a war involving jihadism at all,” Engel said. “They desperately needed our help, which we didn’t supply, and as a result ISIS got the upper hand. We are now paying the price of that.”
Back when there was a possibility of success or what passes for success in the Middle East Barack Obama did nothing. Then he said doing what most everyone suggested was “a fantasy”.
Now, that it very late Obama adopts the long lost strategy as his fantasy strategy. But it is horsesh*t.
The Foreign Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:
At the same time, Taliban officials live and work in Qatar, and the Sunni nation has control of the often anti-American television network al Jazeera. The U.S. has taken issue with its support for Hamas. Meanwhile, support for Syrian rebel groups coming out of Qatar and other Arab nations may have contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Qatar? Really? The enemy within that coalition. In America that enemy goes by the name of Obama.
Obama losing the confidence of key parts of the coalition that elected him
Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and in 2012 gave him another four years to deliver on his promises of hope and change.
Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president.
“He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home and abroad are looking scarier.
On the other side of the country, Karlene Richardson, 44, once counted herself a “very strong supporter” of the president. But now she feels much the same as Cole does.
“Honestly, I just feel that what I bought into is not what I’m getting,” said Richardson, an author and motivational speaker who teaches health care administration at a community college in Queens. “I’m starting to wonder whether the world takes us seriously.”
Both Cole and Richardson were surveyed in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll and represent one of its most striking findings: the degree to which the president’s approval has slipped among key parts of the Obama coalition — the women, youth and Latino voters most responsible for putting him into office.
They’re kicking and screaming out ‘no we can’t – take it anymore’.
African-Americans? They’re still mostly sticking by skin color – 87% approve of Obama even as their communities and opportunities are decimated by Obama (although even there support is down from the 93% it used to be).
The coalition of the kicking and screaming here at home has many women:
Virginia Wilson, 60, of Charleston, W.Va., is another disillusioned Obama voter.
“I can’t blame it all on him,” she said, but added, “There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” [snip]
And Richardson — interviewed before Obama gave a prime time speech Wednesday laying out plans to target Islamic State with airstrikes — said “he just made these promises that he doesn’t go through with” related to the terrorist group.
“There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” Are you kidding? With Obama???? That was all in your head darling. It was a fantasy. It was horseshit.
This morning on an MESSYNBC Obama rally disguised as a talk show, Chuck Todd said that Democrats’ internal polls showed their candidates dropping 6-9 percentage points when Obama went golfing after speaking about Foley’s murder. That’s what tonight is about. It’s a salvage operation but instead of pirate gold they will try to salvage the bones of pirate Obama.
Part of the Obama speech will be a performance to come off as tough. Obama will say he will bomb and bomb ISIS (he calls them ISIL because he doesn’t like the Syria reminder) “wherever they exist“. Twitchy asks if that means he will bomb Minnesota Mosques.
As noted in our comments section the New York Times for years held back the truth about Iraq from the American public in order to protect Barack Obama. Tonight, Jay Carney who recently evacuated the White House spokesman position will be an impartial “analyst” for CNN. Big Media will do all to salvage Obama’s Titanic mess.
Tonight we will watch the primary returns from those voting (Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts) but especially the votes from New York and New Hampshire for more clues about November. The clues are already piled up high like dumped from a box pieces of a double jumbo puzzle. Politicodumps the puzzle pieces:
Gallup: Why Dems should worry
The Gallup poll found 14 percent of Americans approve of how the legislative branch is handling its job, the lowest approval rating two months before elections that the poll has measured since 1974.
“Americans indicate that these negative attitudes will increase their probability of voting this fall, and history suggests it is more likely that Democrats than Republicans will suffer as a result, given Democratic control of the White House,” the polling firm wrote.
Blame Barack you dumb-asses. You support Obama and now you must suffer and die.
A majority of voters believe Barack Obama’s presidency has been a failure, a new poll says.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 52 percent of Americans say Obama’s presidency has been a failure, compared with 42 percent who believe it has been a success. Thirty-nine percent believe strongly that his presidency is a failure, just 3 points below his total success score.
Political analyst Stu Rothenberg sees a wave election coming for Senate Republicans in November.
In a Roll Call column published Monday, the electoral expert said he is expecting Republicans to gain at least seven seats in the Senate and earn a November victory more dramatic than several pollsters have suggested.
“I am now expecting a substantial Republican Senate wave in November, with a net gain of at least seven seats,” he said. “But I wouldn’t be shocked by a larger gain.” [snip]
“The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party,” he later added, a reference to President Barack Obama’s sagging approval numbers throughout the summer.
Rothenberg is not alone. Although most of the vote counters in D.C. have (as recently as a week ago) mocked the idea of a Republican wave in November they all project the likelihood of Republican control of both houses of congress. They all blame Obama for the dire condition of the Obama Dimocratic Party.
This is a race in which we wish every candidate would lose. Hillary Clinton robocalls in support of Cuomo. But Cuomo’s treatment of the Teachout loon reminds us of Barack Obama’s snub of Hillary in the U.S. Senate. Take a look at Cuomo and DeBlasio snub Teachout and see why we don’t want Cuomo to win even though he will, absent a miracle:
Disgusting. It is also reprehensible that Cuomo refused to debate at all. May they all lose. A low vote total for Cuomo will be a loss for Cuomo and a slap in the wrist for his obnoxious unaccounted for behavior.
In New Hampshire we’ll look to Scott Brown’s vote totals too. But here the question will be to what extent Brown solidifies Republican support after his win tonight. If Brown unites the Republicans quickly he can then make a play for independents. Soon enough we will see if New Hampshire will be another “unexpected” Republican win in November.
In Massachusetts Scott Brown’s vanquished opponent Martha Coakley better win big or she might lose to her strong Republican opponent Charlie Baker. Baker ran and lost to Governor Deval Patrick. These days Deval Patrick is the latest proposed Hillary Clinton 2016 opponent. Every so often Deval Patrick gets out of Barack Obama’s ass and attacks Hillary in the type of slimy way only a close ally of Obama is capable of. Go to Hell Deval Patrick!
Daval Patrick and many Obama acolytes still inject themselves in the morning with Hopium. But have the “dreamers” quit and woken from their Hopium drunk? Will Hopium addled “dreamers” save Obama and Obama Dimocrats this November??? Some Hopium sniffers are, these many years too late, bowing at the altar of Big Pink with their lace mantillas on reciting our catechism:
Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his foes. Obama cannot be trusted.
When it comes to immigration, Obama has a long trail of half-truths and broken promises. In July 2008, the presidential candidate told the National Council of La Raza that, if elected, he would make the issue a top priority and address it within the first 100 days. That didn’t happen.
White House officials then moved the goal line to, well, the first term. That didn’t happen either.
From 2009 to 2011, Obama told supporters that he couldn’t curb deportations because he was “not a king.”
Yet, in 2012, eager to re-engage Hispanic voters for his reelection, Obama summoned his inner monarch when he unveiled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which gives undocumented young people a temporary reprieve from deportation and work permits.
In 2013, Obama did another about-face and returned to his rhetoric about how he couldn’t act alone to stop deportations. [snip]
Now, we’re in another election year, and Obama is back to cynically using the promise of immigration reform to get Latino voters to turn out. He dangles it like a carrot in front of a donkey pulling a cart. [snip]
Latinos should be furious at Obama’s betrayal. But they should save some anger for themselves for believing the lies.
As for Obama, he continues to insult Latinos with more blame-shifting and double talk.
Latino carts chasing the donkey carrot. Anyone who believed Barack Obama ever is an ass. No pity, just contempt from us for this level of stupidity from these dumb-ass “dreamers”.
Anyone who believed Barack Obama deserves all the insults and snubs from Obama they get. Slap them in the face Barack! They’re losers in desperate need of kicks to the face, hammers to the head, and punches to the kidneys. Sic ‘em dog Barack. Make them rue the day they voted for you as we sit back and laugh as they get what they deserve.
Easy answer: ’cause you’re stupid you dumb-asses. You deserve all the misery you get.
Latino Obama supporters have not learned much. Have other Americans learned? Will November be a massive rejection of Obama and Obama supporters at the polls?
Tonight, on 9/9/14 we have the primaries to entertain us. Tomorrow on 9/10/14 we have Barack Obama to torture us. Next up on 9/11/14 we have the anniversary of the Muslim extremist attacks on the United States to remind us of what is at stake.
Update II: You can stop laughing now. “Red line” Obama has made his move. Unable to decide on whom to stab in the back, Barack Obama will stab everyone in the back – friend and foe alike. You know our first rule on Obama:
Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his foes. Obama cannot be trusted.
Obama Dimocrats running for office will still have to answer for their support of Barack Obama as he burns the Constitution on the altar of illegal immigration amnesty politics. Their acts as co-conspirators who support diktat Obama will heighten as an issue because Obama says he will still violate the Constitution after the election and they will continue to support Obama.
The American public opposed to illegal immigration amnesty has been stabbed in the back too and will not be fooled by Obama’s attempt to hide from accountability for his actions and the actions of Obama Dimocrats. The illegal immigration amnesty “dreamers” have a knife in their backs too:
Obama’s decision abandons a pledge he made June 30 to act quickly after summer’s end, and it prompted an immediate and furious backlash from immigration advocates. [snip]
Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, said the decision was “another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community.”
“Where we have demanded leadership and courage from both Democrats and the president, we’ve received nothing but broken promises and a lack of political backbone,” she said.
“But Dreamers will not soon forget the president and Democrats’s latest failure and their attempts to fool the Latino community, and we remain resolute in fighting for justice for our families,” Jimenez added. [snip]
“We advocates didn’t make the reform promise; we just made the mistake of believing it,” Sharry said. “The President and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people; the status quo over solving real problems.”
“It is hard to believe this litany of high expectations and broken promises will be mended by the end of the year,” he said.
Adding onto what could be viewed as calls to mobilize against Democrats during a crucial election year, Sharry said “the stakes have only been raised; so is our determination.”
Arturo Carmona, director of Presente.org, an online Latino organizing group, called the delay a “betrayal” and one of the “single biggest attacks on Latino families by the Democratic Party in recent memory.”
“Treachery” and “Obama” are two words you will often find in the same sentence.
[Thanks again to PowerLine for selection of our well timed article as a "pick".]
Barack will violate the Constitution and that is criminal enough. But the Obama Dimocrats who want Obama to wait to make his unconstitutional diktat after the November elections in order to spare them from the wrath of the voters are even worse. Senator Jeff Sessions has it right:
“The only thing that is more shocking than Senate Democrats’ support for the President’s planned executive amnesty is the cravenness of asking him to proceed beginning the day after the midterms. Once again, powerful politicians are colluding with powerful interest groups to deny you, the American citizen, the protection of your laws and your voice in government. They don’t care what you want, or what you think—they scorn and mock our good and decent citizens for wishing their laws to be enforced.”
It’s not very often a sentence includes “GOP” and “smart” in it.
Like careless mountain climbers twisting in the wind after a slip, with only a slight grip on a few loose roots of dead vegetation to halt the fall into the abyss, Obama Dimocrats are down to race-baiting on immigration and the gender-baiting War On Women act to rescue them this November. But the GOP has a smart ax to chop hands off and hurtle Obama Dimocrats to a blood splattered end.
Obama Dimocrats gender-baiting on the Hobby Lobby court ruling with distortions about how that is an assault on the right of women to contraception was to be THE prime tool to woo daffy young single women back into the Dim ranks of voters this November. But oddly, and it comes as a shock to all, Republicans came up with a very effective response.
It’s like lobbing a mortar explosive into the enemy camp ammunition dump. The ammunition dump explodes. The massive ammunition dump explosion kills those in the camp. The camp is destroyed. What is left of the enemy army finds itself without ammunition to fight. The GOP has Cory Gardner of Colorado to thank for the direct hit with his mortar on the ammunition dump in the War On Women:
Republicans want to beat Democrats at their own game this November by proposing a new way to widen access to birth control.
GOP candidates around the country are saying they want to make the pill available over the counter without a doctor’s prescription for the first time since it was approved in 1960.
The party hopes its stance, widely shared by healthcare providers, will help neutralize tough debates over birth control coverage and cut into Democrats’ traditional advantage among women voters.
“Cory’s proposal puts women in control,” said Alex Siciliano, spokesman for Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the first 2014 Senate candidate to talk up the idea.
“Making oral contraception available to adults at every pharmacy, without the trouble of a doctor’s visit, would drop the retail price and save money and time and hassle,” Siciliano said in a statement.
Obama Dimocrats are aghast. ‘Make it easier to obtain cheaper birth control’ that must be racist or something, they seem to say. They say its a “distraction” from the War on Women which they thought was the path for them to avoid destruction this November.
Appearing more confident and prepared than the incumbent, Tillis became the latest Republican Senate candidate to come out in support of expanding access to oral contraceptives. In a race with a wide gender gap, the state House speaker — who has been defending attacks from Democrats on women’s issues — for the first time went on the offense.
“First I believe contraception should be available — and probably more broadly than it is today,” Tillis said. “I actually agree with the American Medical Association that we should make contraception more widely available. I think over-the-counter oral contraception should be available without a prescription. If you do those kinds of things you will actually increase the access and reduce the barriers for having more options for women for contraception.”
When treatments go over-the-counter, two things happen: they get dramatically cheaper and consumers save time and hassle by avoiding unnecessary doctors’ appointments just to get the pharmaceuticals they already know they need.
Fewer unneeded doctors’ appointments mean fewer missed workdays and child-care expenses, more productivity and more time with family. This is particularly true for rural families like mine where doctors are not always nearby.
Women in my hometown of Yuma drive one hour to see their obstetrician/gynecologist in Fort Morgan, even if it’s just to get a prescription renewed. With over 50,000 pharmacies in America and no appointment required, the increase in convenience and access would aid every adult woman who uses oral contraceptives, whether it’s the first time they get them or when they run out and need a refill far from home.
The inevitable cost savings from a switch to OTC status should not be underestimated. Almost all therapies that move to OTC drop in price dramatically. Many insurers and state Medicaid programs have covered common OTC therapies for this economic reason. For those without coverage, these OTC costs are usually cheaper than a co-pay for a prescription drug.
Since January 2011, an obscure provision of Obamacare has blocked insurers from covering OTC medicine without a prescription. If Democrats are serious about making oral contraception affordable and accessible, we can reverse that technical provision.
Driving the price down for a safe medicine is a better way to provide access to adults who want it than President Obama’s insurance mandate. Many women don’t have access today in spite of the Obamacare mandate, and it violates religious liberty in the process. If a new generation of senators puts partisanship aside, we can protect the liberties of women to have easy access to affordable oral contraception at the same time we protect the rights of those with conscience objections.
In his article Cory Gardner cited support in 2012 for the idea from a committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So why hasn’t this good idea happened?:
Since it makes so much sense, you might wonder why this change has not happened yet. It’s because too many people in Washington would rather play politics with contraception instead of actually making life easier for women. Too many Democrats prefer to attack Republicans on the issue of contraception rather than actually make contraception more available and affordable and too many Republicans are afraid to break the mold.
So why hasn’t this happened? For his political profit Barack Obama is waging a War On Women.
Likewise, for his political profit Barack Obama is race-baiting on immigration reform.
Barack Obama promised to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2008. In 2009 the promise turned out to be another Hope and Change lie. Obama had total control of the congress back when he promised to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2010. That was another broken promise. Ditto 2011. Ditto 2012. Ditto 2013. Now it is 2014 and the plan was to dupe Latino voters again. But Republicans accidentally fell headfirst into a smart strategy.
Barack Obama threatened. If the congress would not bow to his imperious demands then Obama threatened to act on his own. Barack Obama threatened and threatened some more. Republicans quivered in fear but fear also prevented them from moving forward with amnesty. Obama threatened again. Increasingly Republicans lost their fear and stood their ground.
Barack Obama threatened again. He would act alone like an imperial personage in a backwater country. Republicans began to quiver less and less and wonder why Obama was threatening so much and doing so little. Then came the flood of border crossing children goaded to come by Obama and his allies and the public began to take notice of what was happening at the border.
Barack Obama’s threats became a hole he dug for himself. Barack Obama thought that he could bully Republicans into doing what he demanded. But then Republicans saw that this was a case of MISERY LOVES COMPANY. Republicans smartly refused to provide company to the miserable Obama.
Obama Dimocrats meanwhile began to panic and fear for themselves. The calls from those running for election in November for the senate solidified into opposition to Obama’s imperial presidency diktats on immigration amnesty.
Morning Plum: Why top Dems are worried about politics of deportations
The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that the White House is considering whether to postpone Obama’s politically explosive executive action to defer deportations until after the elections. This would “bow to the concerns of Democratic lawmakers running in Republican-leaning states who have expressed opposition to Obama’s plans to act unilaterally on the hot-button issue.”
I’m not sure how seriously to take this. But it does seem likely that Dems will mount internal pressure on the White House to hold off as the elections heat up.
So it’s worth detailing why, exactly, Dems worry that Obama acting could make a GOP Senate takeover more likely. The conversations going on among high level Dems, as I understand them, focus not just on worries that Republicans would seize on any act of Obummer Lawlessness to argue that Dem Senators are powerless to halt the Obama agenda and that a GOP Senate is necessary as a check on it. They also focus on the peculiar makeup of this midterm electorate.
As Sargent pointed out, “Meanwhile, Dem hopes for survival rest heavily on turning out the unmarried women who are increasingly key to the Dem coalition but sit out midterms.” Well, that is not going so well either is it?
“Expectations are sky high,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, adding that if there is yet another delay to immigration reform, “the disappointment and anger is likely to be profound.”
Barack Obama dug the trap Barack Obama is in. If he does not dictate amnesty via an unconstitutional usurpation of congress “the disappointment and anger is likely to be profound” and turnout in November for Obama Dimocrats will be um, profound. It’s already damned bad.
It wasn’t that long ago (August 29, 2014) that Obama was (on immigration amnesty, not ISIS or Ukraine) “spoiling for a fight”:
The White House Is Spoiling for a Fight on Immigration
Obama seems determined to push ahead, despite the fears of some Democrats.
The White House appears to be moving full-speed ahead on an executive order that would provide widespread protection to illegal immigrants from deportation, Republicans—and maybe some Democrats—be damned.
Those close to the process expect an order in the first few weeks of September—and expect it, in the words of one immigration advocate, to be “significant.” [snip]
Yet the administration’s posture has been one of anticipating—even inviting—a highly public confrontation with Republicans over the issue. And while the concerns of vulnerable Senate Democrats in key races are being taken into account, they don’t seem to be persuading the White House to deviate from its course—suggesting that the matter is viewed less in terms of the politics of the moment and more in terms of President Obama’s long-term liberal legacy.
“Have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action, I’m going to do what I can to make sure the system works better,” Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday.
Even as the ultimate scope of the order remains unclear, Obama is in a position where he almost has to go big, because no matter what he does, it will be construed that way by the GOP. [snip]
Moreover, once it became clear that the House wasn’t going to act on the Senate bill, high-profile Senate leaders such as Chuck Schumer of New York called for Obama to act on his own. Schumer’s office said that he hasn’t shifted from that stance and has not asked the White House to delay the order until after the midterms.
Indeed, there’s a school of thought that if Obama waits until after the midterms to act, he may be doing so in advance of a Republican Senate that will dedicate itself to rolling back the order. Doing it now at least affords the possibility that the ensuing controversy will galvanize base voters and ward off a handover of the chamber to the GOP.
Unfortunately for Democratic incumbents, however, the map affords them very little opportunity to use the issue to drive Hispanic turnout. [snip]
Otherwise, it’s more than possible in states such as Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina that Obama’s order will feed the Republican narrative of an out-of-control chief executive, perhaps serving as the wedge issue that puts the GOP candidates there over the top. The National Republican Senatorial Committee points to polls that show that a majority of independents who favor legislative reform oppose unilateral action.
Compounding the issue from a messaging standpoint is that Obama spent much of the first part of the year talking about how he lacked the power to make bold moves to reshape the nation’s immigration system. Those words will certainly be used against Obama and Democratic candidates in GOP campaigns.
It was almost a year ago. The Labor Union Movement died. Labor Unions killed it. It wasn’t Scott Walker. It wasn’t Detroit. It wasn’t Big Business. Labor Unions killed the Labor Union Movement along with themselves.
We can pinpoint the exact day, hour, and minute the Labor Union Movement died. It was almost a year ago. It was September 9, 2013:
Blue-collar laborers rebel at AFL-CIO’s embrace of progressives
The AFL-CIO needs to stick with representing workers and stop trying to take on social causes for the far left, said the union head for the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Harold Schaitberger, who presides over the IAFF, said there is “great value” in aligning with political groups — but only as a secondary mission, he told The Hill. And the AFL-CIO’s recent push to bring in environmental groups and progressive-minded organizations to the union cause is leading the IAFF to express concerns about politics becoming the priority, over the representation of members.
On September 10, 2013 Big Labor chiefs stabbed the workers in the back:
“To say that we are going to grow this labor movement by some kind of formal partnership, membership, status, place in this federation, I am against. This is the American Federation of Labor. We are supposed to be representing workers and workers’ interests,” Mr. Schaitberger said in The Hill. “We are not going to be the American Federation of Progressive and Liberal Organizations.”
He’s not alone in that view. Union members from the construction sector have been especially vocal against bringing environmental groups into the AFL-CIO family, viewing them as the enemy in the Keystone XL pipeline fight.
“Does that mean we are going to turn energy policy of the AFL-CIO over to the Sierra Club? I have concern about that, as well as I should,” said Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, in The Hill report. “I grew up in the movement to do one of two things. We support anything that’s good for another union brother or sister, or we keep our mouths shut. That seems that has changed along the way.”
Labor unions were supposed to represent the interests of workers. But the workers have been stabbed in the back.
Big Labor stabbed the workers in the back. Big Labor’s betrayal of workers takes many forms the most flagrant being support for illegal immigration amnesty. If Big Labor cared about higher wages for workers it would try to lesson the labor supply not increase it.
Big Business has an interest in a surplus of workers to drive down wages. Big Labor on amnesty for illegal immigrants is on the side of Big Business not the little worker.
LOS ANGELES — The AFL-CIO on Monday opened the door to becoming a group that is more representative of the left than of its members.
Facing what AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka called a “crisis” of membership, officials took the dramatic step at their annual convention of adopting a resolution that invites anyone in the country to join, regardless of union affiliation.
The move faced stiff resistance from union officials who fear the AFL-CIO’s primary mission of representing workers will be left behind if the federation becomes a mouthpiece for liberal and progressive groups.
Despite the resistance, the resolution was adopted without a single “nay” vote being heard in the convention hall.
Death by suicide. Not a “nay” vote to be heard on behalf of the workers and the interests of the workers.
The workers will now be guided by “student representatives, academics, civil rights advocates”. The “creative class” which loathes the white working class is become in America the vanguard of the proletariat. The Labor Union Movement dies not with a bang nor a whimper but with a laugh at the expense of the working class.
Private sector unions, having mostly destroyed the jobs they were organized to represent, are dying. Public sector unions are doing better, and now represent more than half of union membership. But they, in truth, aren’t doing so great either.
So the AFL-CIO has come up with a novel solution: open up membership to people who are not actually members of unions:
The AFL-CIO on Monday opened the door to becoming a group that is more representative of the left than of its members.
That has been true for a while, but now they apparently are making it official.
It’s official. On that date, at that hour, at the moment no “nay” votes were heard – the Labor Union Movement died. The workers are dead! Long Live The Soviets! Long Live The Workers Party Without The Workers!
Sure, by funneling more dollars to the Democratic Party, whether actual union workers like it or not. There is a certain logic to the transition of the union movement away from unionized workers. The Democratic Party wrote off the American working class some years ago, except insofar as it may happen to overlap with a favored constituency. Labor bosses have long been more interested in supporting leftist causes and politicians than representing their members in collective bargaining. So why not make it official? If you are a MoveOn member, say, the doors are now open, whether you have had a job in recent decades or not. Join the AFL-CIO!
Ruy Teixiera has been aided and abetted in his toxic theories by books that deride “Bubba” such as the dangerous and idiotic “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” Books such as the Kansas book provided “theorists” from the left a “we’re smarter” snob attitude and justification for a class based hatred of poor whites.
“Here is the thing: I don’t care if Democrats ever make up any ground among Reagan Democrats, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. I’ll take that trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Importantly, it feels to me as though we can make that trade if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, but that we will be making the opposite trade if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee. While Clinton’s advantage among Latinos and Asians does not make it a perfect match, Obama’s primary coalition is far closer to the coalition we need for an expanding future of the Democratic Party, while Clinton’s primary is a lot more like the coalition we have been chasing after for the past twenty-five years or so. It is in this demographic sense that I partially accept Obama’s message about “moving beyond the political divides of the past” and into a new America. I’m tried of the old coalitions, and eager for the promising new ones that hold such tremendous potential for a generational progressive majority.
I am so sick of chasing after the “Reagan Democrats” whose backlash against the civil-rights movement has held progressivism in America back for so long. While I freely admit that there are many people opposing Hillary Clinton for equally chauvinistic and offensive reasons as there are people opposing Barack Obama, overall those voters are probably a minority of the same Reagan Democrats after which I am tired of chasing. I’m just sick and tired of this group being the dominant swing voting block in the United States, and I want to move past it. Demographically speaking, Obama does appear to be the candidate who can do that better than Hillary Clinton, and I freely admit that is one reason I would prefer for Obama to be the nominee.”
Because of the AFL-CIO vote a little over a year ago, the white Christian hating – white working class hating – haiku writing skinny white boy “creative class” punk can now join what used to be a labor union and lead the working classes to his Soviet Gulag utopia.
Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor [snip]
In all, it’s fair to say a large number of the corporate signers of the letter demanding more labor from abroad have actually laid off workers at home in recent years. Together, their actions have a significant effect on the economy. According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.
“It is difficult to understand how these companies can feel justified in demanding the importation of cheap labor with a straight face at a time when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed,” writes the Center for Immigration Studies, which strongly opposes the Senate Gang of Eight bill and similar measures. “The companies claim the bill is an ‘opportunity to level the playing field for U.S. employers’ but it is more of an effort to level the wages of American citizens.“
Big Business, The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and state and local Chambers of Commerce are doing what they should be doing which is to represent their members. These business groups want to keep wages low or lower them if possible. They want a huge labor supply of illegal immigrants and higher legal immigration in order to keep wages down or pressure them even lower. These business groups are doing what is right for their members.
The workers? The workers have no one to represent their interests. The workers have been betrayed. The workers have been stabbed in the back.
There once was a Labor Union Movement and Labor Unions to represent the workers. But Labor Unions committed suicide. On September 9, 2013 the Labor Union Movement died. Not one voice was raised to stop the self-slaughter.
We have been too kind and generous towards Barack Obama. Our generosity has been in our assumption that it is not Barack Obama’s willful purpose to do everything he can to destroy the United States of America. With every day that passes this assumption appears less rational.
We’ve made these same arguments and caveats before. In March of this year while discussing Russia and Ukraine we stated that it is possible that Barack Obama’s actions are motivated by a desire to do America harm. When we first started to broach the possibility of willful treachery against America we generally gave greater credence to the “boob” aspect of Barack Obama.
But after Barack Obama’s conduct this week the scales tip from boobery to malevolent treachery. The argument can be made, if one is watching the sideshow not the center ring, that it is sheer stupidity for Obama to say and do the things he says and does. But that level of stupidity beggars imagination.
To us Barack Obama’s comments appeared to be a green light to terrorists, Putin, China, all the world’s bad actors, to do their worst because Barack Obama would protect them from the United States and any harm. It was Barack Obama distracting the United States, its military, and American allies and their armies to chase their tails like circus pets instead of baring teeth as watchdogs in the burglar-shielding night.
How else to explain what was going on? As the Russian bear gobbled up Crimea and targeted Ukraine Barack Obama chose that perilous moment to announce the American military was shrinking to pre-World War II levels. We wrote “It was brilliant timing if the intent was to signal weakness to Russia at a critical tipping point in the Ukraine and world-wide.
As to Syria and ISIS the Obama strategy is to inform terrorists via a high visibility press conference from the White House that they have a green light to carry out their nefarious plots because Barack Obama’s strategy is to be without a strategy to stop them. It was a green light to terrorists and malefactors worldwide:
SO WHY NO STRATEGY YET?
Couldn’t he have come up with something on the back of the scorecard between the fourth and fifth holes?
ISIS, which did not spend the month of August golfing, has a strategy. They’ve announced it. And as Obama’s own advisors have made clear, ISIS means business.
Other world leaders are focused on the job, returned from vacations, terror alerts to terror alerted police issued. Obama is back to the playgrounds of the rich to raise money and cavort. “I wonder what you think about the optics of the president, from that podium yesterday, does not have a strategy to deal with ISIS in serious military, and then next day, without that strategy, goes out and raises campaign money?”
We worry for the country. Big Media outlets worry about Obama. Even the supposedly “critical” outlets are focused less on the damage of Obama treachery against America than Obama’s damage to Obama:
As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm people’s pre-existing suspicions or fit into an easy narrative. That’s why “47 percent” stung Mitt Romney so much, and its why “don’t have a strategy” hurts Obama today.
Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft t0 his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama’s errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he’s “not tough enough” when it comes to foreign policy and national security.
The damage Barack Obama does every day to America must be the focus. Even the House Intelligence Committee Chairman who is a Republican does not understand the problem. Here is what he said about Obama’s lack of strategy:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers did not mince words Thursday, slamming President Barack Obama for an “odd” news conference during which the president said, “We do not have a strategy” to deter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“It was an odd press conference at the very best, but to have a press conference to say we don’t have a strategy was really shocking given the severity of the threat. That’s what’s so concerning to me,” Rogers (R-Mich.) told Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said from the White House press briefing room Thursday afternoon.
Blizter said White House aides have clarified Obama’s remarks to say the president meant a strategy specifically targeting ISIL in Syria, before asking Rogers if he was “happy with that.”
“Well, I’m not OK with it, and it just confirmed what we’ve been talking about really for almost two years: There has been no real strategy,” the congressman said. “I mean this just tells you how far we have to go and I’m just not sure the severity of the problem has really sunk in to the administration just yet. Clearly, that’s what that told me today.”
Mike Rodgers must begin to realize that for Barack Obama not having a strategy is the strategy. No strategy against America’s enemies is quite possibly what Barack Obama is up to. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But give us a better explanation. Boobery? This is so far beyond stupidity… well, no one entity is that stupid. Even paramecium have more of a survival intelligence than that.
President Barack Obama tried to get himself a bit more political space Thursday to make a decision about whether to expand the U.S military campaign against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, but in so doing he may have dealt himself a significant political blow by suggesting that his policy on the issue is adrift.
“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said as he took questions from reporters in the White House briefing room.
Instead of concocting silly reasons about why Obama announced to the world’s thugs that it is open season on an unprepared America as well as worrying about Obama’s damage to Obama, Gerstein should consider that maybe Obama’s purpose is to damage America. It’s a crazy proposition but it makes more sense than Gerstein’s.
Just last week, when even Politico writers were horrified that Obama had once again gone golfing immediately after (and I mean minutes after) announcing how very concerned he was about the beheading of James Foley, Joe Scarborough offered the counterintuitive spin that Obama was actually broadcasting his strength via this maneuver.
Scarborough’s takeaway was that IS must look at this Golfin’ Genghis Khan, this Saladin of the Seven Iron, this Mulligan MacArthur, this Desert Fox of the Sandtraps, and tremble, for they must be saying to themselves, “Wow, we killed a guy and he just went golfing. Well, that is one cold bastard.”
No he really spun it that way — that Obama signaled himself to be “one cold bastard,” veins filled with ice water, and not the sort of man you should trifle with.
America is in very real danger and very dangerous trouble. Barack Obama is having the time of his life vacationing, fundraising, golfing. Maybe Barack Obama’s good times and America’s bad times are connected. Maybe that’s the Obama strategy.
Mark Pryor in a tough reelection fight in Arkansas says Barack Obama does not have “carte blanche authority to sidestep Congress when he doesn’t get his way.” That’s what Obama used to say when he was fighting off the no borders crowd in order to win his reelection.
Panicked Democrats locked in tight midterm races as the party tries desperately to hold onto control of the Senate fear President Obama’s anticipated executive amnesty for about 5 million illegal immigrants may doom their re-election campaigns.
Hagen and Begich are also whining. Hey, Obama got his, now screw you. Sacrifice yourselves for “Obama’s latest legacy” item which will explode in Dimocrat faces just like Obamacare.
Update: Forthwith the counterargument to the one we make. We’ve been hearing a lot of background noise about how Obama Dimocrats have a master plan that is producing incredible results such that this November will be a big success or at least not a complete bust. This is what they are up to which Republicans should match:
Inside the Democrats’ Plan to Save Arkansas—and the Senate
The party’s desperate bid to hang onto the majority rests on an unprecedented political organizing effort in red states like this one.
PINE BLUFF, Arkansas—No sign announces the purpose of this little storefront, squeezed between a Bestway Rent to Own and a Rent-a-Center in a dilapidated shopping center. But the words hand-lettered in black and red marker on three pieces of paper taped to the window—“Register to Vote Here”—and a cluster of placards for candidates give it away: It is a Democratic Party field office.
Democrats aren’t advertising this office and 39 others like it that are scattered around Arkansas—in fact, their locations are a closely guarded secret. When I visited last week, having tracked it down through creative public-records sleuthing, I took Chita Collins, the field organizer on duty there, by surprise. But I wanted to see the evidence of what Democrats have been claiming they’re building in states like this one, and what could be crucial to their uphill quest to keep the Senate: an Obama-style community-organizing effort of unprecedented scale for a non-presidential election.
The office in Pine Bluff is a cavernous, mostly empty space. Six full-time, paid staff work out of the unit, which is open seven days a week. [snip]
This year, Republicans are in danger of getting organizationally overmatched once again. [snip]
But the Republicans’ effort pales in comparison to what the Democrats have built: Democrats are spending more than five times as much money in Arkansas, and have four times as many field offices and triple the number of staff. In the month of July alone, the Arkansas Democratic Party reported nearly $900,000 in federal campaign spending, while Arkansas Republicans reported $155,000. (Most of the money the Democrats are spending has come directly from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.) Democrats listed 64 staffers on their payroll; Republicans listed 22. The RNC claims it has 50 people on the payroll in Arkansas, including some being paid by other GOP committees, but I could not find a record of them and staffers on the ground were not aware of them. According to public records, there are Democratic staffers in places like Cabot (population 24,000), Marion (12,000), Arkadelphia (11,000), and Dardanelle, Tom Cotton’s hometown, with fewer than 5,000 residents.
On election day 2012 the incompetent Romney GOTV program crashed in one massive ORCA mess. Instead of asking What’s the matter with Kansas? it might be wiser for Republicans/conservatives to make sure they don’t have another GOTV crash and burn in places they should easily win like ArKANSAS.
The New Hampshire Senate race is tightening, according to a just-posted WMUR poll that puts Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen up only 2 points, 46-44, over Republican Scott Brown.
That’s within the margin of error. The same poll last month had Shaheen ahead by 12 points. [snip]
President Barack Obama’s slipping popularity is an anchor dragging down the incumbent, the pollster found. Obama’s approval rating is 37 percent, with 59 percent disapproving. Brown leads 71-17 among those who disapprove of the president.
Scott Brown is still fighting for the nomination (primary election day is September 9) and he is already well within striking distance of removing an incumbent senator from power. Scott Brown is not even that popular in New Hampshire. His favorable/unfavorable numbers are upside down. Yet Scott Brown is within the margin of error in New Hampshire. Why? ObamaCare is one reason. Here is another answer:
Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas informs the voters on the record of incumbent Senator Mark Pryor using the Scott Brown template to victory:
Terry Lynn Land is doing much the same in Michigan:
Some of Barack Obama’s most loyal subjects and even the most loyal of the loyal who play piano in the Obama whorehouse (yes, we’re talking about you Greg Sargent) are predicting that pressure from Obama Dimocrats will build to stop Obama from illegal immigration amnesty before the November 2014 elections.
Obama drew criticism from the left for not being forceful enough in speaking out on the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson and from the right over the death of Foley and the rise of the militant Islamic State. Then there was the golf; nine rounds during his 16 days on Martha’s Vineyard, including a trip to the links immediately after his condemnation of Foley’s killers.
That series of events left the impression of a disconnected president, frustrated with both the expectations and the limitations inherent in being the nation’s leader at this moment in history.
It also led to worries — expressed privately — among Democratic party strategists that Obama’s seemingly long-view approach to international and domestic conflicts could spell doom for the party’s chances in the midterm elections, which are only about 10 weeks away.
The country is going to Hell in an Obama woven hand-basket and all these corrupt Obama enablers can think about is the November elections. The November elections will be a combination Waterloo and Barack Obama out in the sun for a week without deodorant. P. U.
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – Her re-election in doubt, North Carolina’s Democratic senator has an uncomfortable decision to make as President Barack Obama appears in her state before a critical audience she’s trying to woo: Veterans.
Join in the same camera shot as Obama, who lost North Carolina in 2012 and is unpopular in the state, and Sen. Kay Hagan could offer her Republican opponent fresh attack ad footage tying her to the president. Stay away from Obama while he visits North Carolina on Tuesday, and Hagan risks alienating minority voters who generally support the president.
Either way, Obama is casting a shadow on an event with the potential to boost Hagan’s credibility with veterans and military personnel. The president’s speech is scheduled about an hour before Hagan’s. Even if they don’t appear together publicly, they’ll be in the same building at the same time. Already Monday, GOP candidate Thom Tillis released a statement accusing Hagan of being a “rubber stamp” for the Obama administration.
But the American Legion National Convention is a speaking engagement Hagan cannot afford to skip in a state with some of the nation’s busiest Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard installations.
Hagan, locked in one of the country’s hottest Senate races as Republican attempt to gain six seats and a majority, is one of several struggling Democrats in the South distancing herself from Obama.
North Carolina has been one of the most abusive when it comes to veterans and veteran health care. Veterans will be further abused by having to listen to Barack Obama and Obama enabler Kay Hagen. The methane stink on Tusday in North Carolina will numb schoolchildren and finish off aged veterans.
It’s not just the Atlantic coast fearful of the Obama stink. In Minnesota near the Canadian border the stink threatens Obama enabler Al Franken:
Is Al Franken vulnerable?
After winning by just 312 votes in 2008, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) sought to keep his head down and shed his comedian persona.
But as the one-time funny man heads into a reelection contest this year, Republicans are hoping there is one thing he can’t shake: President Obama’s unpopularity. [snip]
“Al Franken’s gonna have a fight on his hands. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that,” said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and director of its Center for the Study of Politics and Governance.
For Republicans, he said, “what they want is McFadden to be a passive, pleasant receptacle for anti-Obama votes.” [snip]
McFadden has focused his campaign on his opponent, though, seeking to link Franken and Obama together. His two TV ads have both centered on repealing ObamaCare, a law Franken [voted] for.
Iowa was never supposed to be a Senate battleground for Democrats.
Following two cycles where it was GOP missteps and subpar candidates who cost them winnable races, the tables have turned and it’s now Democrats who are scrambling to right Rep. Bruce Braley’s flagging campaign before it’s too late.
Recent polls find a coin-flip race between Braley and Iowa state Sen. Joni Ernst(R), and but the national party increasingly worries it could be the tipping point for Senate control.
“If the Democrats lose Iowa, of course it becomes much harder to keep the majority,” said one national Democratic strategist. “The race could very much go either way. We feel like the worst is behind us and it’s moving back towards Bruce Braley. But we know we don’t have this wrapped up.”
Braley’s biggest gaffe took place months ago, when video surfaced of the former trial lawyer criticizing Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as a “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”
But Braley’s problems haven’t stopped there. A neighbor has claimed he threatened to sue because her chickens kept wandering in his yard, and Republicans have been hammering him for missing Veterans Affairs Committee hearings. In-state observers say he’s stiff and awkward at times on the campaign trail, while Ernst is better at retail politicking.
David Yepsen, a thirty-year veteran of the Des Moines Register who now directs the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, said Braley’s “farmer” gaffe “really redefined the race” and was “one of the biggest political stumbles I’ve ever seen.”
“In one swoop, he made a mistake that changes the direction of the race,” said Yepsen. “This was going to be a race that Democrats initially thought would be pretty easy to hold onto and it’s turned into a far different game.”
Joni Ernst has been forced for weeks at a time to suspend her campaigning because she is a member of the National Guard and had to serve. Still, Joni Ernst is fighting like a girl.
The hog pen stench is nothing compared to the stench from Barack Obama. Obama Dimocrats are going to need a powerful deodorant to rid themselves this November of the Obama stink.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."