President Obama

[jimzinsocal]

Once again Obama sticks his nose where it doesnt belong

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/140291/

[jimzinsocal]

Wait as minute. Just last week Obama said or decreed..there was no problem with oil supply and went ahead with tighter sanctions on Iran.
Did he miss all this?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/03/mark....htm?iid=HP_LN

[AMDScooter]

Pretty please.. with sugar on top..


let's punt this insufferable pr*ck outta office ASAP.

MARVELOUS
COLUMN: PEEVISH POTUS HAS NOTHING TO RUN ON BUT DEMAGOGIC ATTACKS AND DEMONIZATION OF REPUBLICANS

Am I alone in thinking that President Obama seemed angrier and bitterer and clingier than usual this week? Then again, you would be angry too if your best chance for reelection lay in smearing the opposition.

The presidential tantrum began Monday during a joint press conference with the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico. Obama was visibly annoyed when a reporter asked him to comment on the troubled health care law and on Mitt Romney’s recent accusation that he “doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do.” Rather than explicate his philosophy of American government and what separates it from all others, however, Obama dodged the question and predictably talked about himself. “My entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism,” he said, regurgitating an argument written more than four years ago by his favorite pundit.

What made the press conference exceptional, however, was the president’s response on health care. First he performed an act of moral blackmail by suggesting that any justice who votes to overturn Obamacare will be personally responsible for the medical condition of America. Then he added that it would be “extraordinary”—indeed, “unprecedented”—for the Court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Finally, in an egregious but revealing moment of spite, the president said that “conservative commentators,” who have criticized “judicial activism” in the past but who now argue for Obamacare to be overturned, are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. “And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that.”

Note that the former lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law did not once give a reason why the law should be upheld on constitutional grounds. That question seems irrelevant to him. Much more important is a preemptive strike against a potential conservative majority on the Court, which might quite reasonably decide that an individual mandate to purchase health insurance exceeds Congress’ enumerated power under the Commerce Clause and, therefore, the entire law ought to be shucked and sent back to Congress, where legislators rather than judges can decide which parts should be kept and which scuttled. Only for a man with a seriously warped view of constitutional government would such actions count as “judicial activism.” Unfortunately for us, Obama is exactly that man.

Not even the media, however, could swallow Obama’s line about the supposedly “unprecedented” nature of judicial review. Perhaps after he leaves office the former editor of the Harvard Law Review can attend some remedial lectures on Marbury v. Madison, which established the Court’s power to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional. The Court has used precisely this power to overturn laws on numerous occasions in recent years, including the line-item veto, the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act, early versions of the partial birth abortion ban, and portions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. A ruling against Obamacare would be unprecedented and extraordinary only in the howls of outrage it will provoke from liberals. The Court hasn’t made up its mind and already our most sophisticated journalists are slandering the justices as anti-democratic hacks. Imagine what the response will be if the Court actually holds against the administration. Ed Schultz might spontaneously combust.

By Tuesday, when the president addressed a laughing crowd of reporters at an AP luncheon, the White House had been forced to back off the charge that an anti-Obamacare decision would be “unprecedented.” What he meant to say, Obama told one reporter, was that “we have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care, that I think most people clearly would consider commerce.” There was a time when the Court did have a stricter view of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Obama added, but that has not been the case “at least since Lochner.” And Lochner was a long, long time ago: “We’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

One might be tempted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for getting his dates and law wrong—Lochner v. New York was decided in 1905, when FDR was in law school, and Lochner involved not a federal but a state statute—for the simple reason that the president’s answer to the AP, unlike his remarks at the press conference, resembled a legal argument. But one should resist that temptation, and resist it strongly, for Obama’s Q&A came after an incendiary, demagogic, and utterly scurrilous attack on the House GOP budget and its author, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

What made things worse was that Obama’s scathing indictment of the Ryan plan was not even original. Elements of the Republican budget may have changed between 2011 and 2012, but Obama’s critique has not. As the Republican National Committee was the first to observe, passage after passage of Obama’s speech had been copied and pasted from his comments the year before. The only difference was that, unlike in 2011, Ryan was not in the audience as the president lied about his plan.

The White House had leaked that the president would use the AP to turn the Ryan budget into a campaign issue. He did not disappoint. He accused Ryan, the GOP House, and likely nominee Mitt Romney of supporting a “Trojan Horse” containing a “radical” plan of “thinly veiled Social Darwinism” that is “antithetical to our entire history,” a “prescription for decline,” and unpatriotic to boot. His face contorted into a grimace, his eyebrows narrowed, his voice booming and angry, Obama said the Republicans want nothing less than to harm the sick and aged while handing out $150,000 checks to millionaires and billionaires.

The performance was so over the top it was almost laughable. The post-partisan reformer who claimed he would change the tone in Washington was again revealed as a canny pol willing to say anything about his opponents to win an election. Obama’s own Treasury Secretary has admitted that “We don’t have a definitive solution” to America’s long-term entitlement crisis; but, rather than working in good faith to reform Medicare and Medicaid, the president wants to scare his way to a second term.

The strangest moment of the speech was when Obama mocked Romney’s vocabulary. The former Massachusetts governor had correctly called Ryan’s budget “marvelous.” Obama’s brilliant rebuttal: That’s “a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget. (Laughter.) It’s a word you don’t often hear generally. (Laughter.)”

The president’s transparent motive was to suggest that Romney is somehow weird or out of touch for using the m-word. This is an argument likely to thrill the legs of Washington correspondents, who heartily laughed along with the president, but unlikely to provide independent voters with any reason whatsoever to support a second Obama administration.

Are we really to believe that Romney is disqualified from the presidency because of his word choices and support for the only serious plan to restore sustainability to the welfare state while promoting economic growth? What is Obama’s alternative? Never to say “marvelous” in public while raising taxes, foisting an unpopular health plan on a recalcitrant public, empowering an unelected board to set prices for Medicare and Medicaid, and delivering the worst economic recovery in history?

One hopes that when the media inevitably scold Americans for conducting the “most negative campaign ever,” they will acknowledge who, exactly, got the ball rolling. From targeting successful private citizens to claiming falsely that the Ryan plan “ends Medicare” to belittling Romney’s wealth and demeanor, the Obama campaign has signaled that it recognizes the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 is not a legislative achievement on which one might base a campaign. Obama’s problem is that with the stimulus a failure, Obamacare on the ropes, Solyndra a national punch line, the national debt exploding, and his only significant proposal an increase in taxes, Lily is all he has.

All these facts will be on display in the fall when Romney debates Obama and (hope springs eternal) Ryan debates Biden. The two sides will spar. One will emerge as serious about the challenges facing the country and the policies necessary to promote freedom and prosperity; the other will be exposed as embittered and clinging to a dilapidated welfare state. The truth will be there for all to see. And it will be marvelous.

[jimzinsocal]

Agree with Althouse here

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04...g-because.html

The silence from the Administration is amazing.

[AMDScooter]

Agree with Althouse here

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04...g-because.html

The silence from the Administration is amazing.

Hardly. He stepped in it again and now is trying to distance himself from it. "Beer summit" ain't gonna cut it. And we all know his DOJ's history of being "color blind"... as long as the color is black. Imagine if the KKK put a bounty on some Jackson or Sharpton's head.

Candidate Bamma vs. incumbent Bamma.

[jimzinsocal]

And since we know Obama is a regular reader here? We have a handy dandy basic primer for him so he might really recognize what social darwinism might be. But maybe he does know..judging by the number of businesses that will be extinct due to his smothering regulations and tax policy.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/d...article/113956

[jimzinsocal]

The Obama Rule

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[Enmore]

Obama is much more like a European 'leader' than an American one. He seems a bit of a square peg in a round hole to me.

[AMDScooter]

Bamma is the unbeatable man.. according to an oversampling of (D)emorats.

ZOMG, Game Over Man! Obama Beating Romney 51/44 in WaPo/ABC poll!

Obama’s just a juggernaut who can’t be stopped. He’s unbeatable. We should just curl up in the fetal position and die because Obama’s “progressive” policies are just so so popular with the American people there’s no way the troglodyte Rethugs can compete… Women are flocking to O because they know Republicans want to take away birth control rights. What can we do? We’re sunk! Whatev— What?

WHAT?

What happens when you switch from a D+4 to a D+11 in measuring Obama’s standing? Suddenly, his job approval goes from 46% to 50% — actually, a rather weak gain given the sampling distortion in the poll. Not coincidentally, the last time Obama hit 50% in this poll was in February, which also had a D+11 sample, after January’s D+7. Adding seven points to the Democratic advantage impacted Obama’s performance in all areas, although perhaps not as much as the editors had hoped:

Economy — Up six points from 38% to 44%
International affairs — Down two points from January’s poll, 47% from 49%
Right/wrong direction – Up three points from January
Now, with a D+11 and Republicans only comprising 23% of the respondents in this poll, one should be seeing huge leads for Obama in the head-to-head matchups. Instead, Obama lead Romney by only eight among general-population adults, 51/43, barely getting into majority territory, and Santorum by ten, 51/41. Among registered voters, Obama leads Romney by seven, 51/44 — in both cases, smaller than the artificial sample advantage of the poll. In fact, adding seven more points to the Democratic advantage only resulted in Obama’s support growing by five points since March, and Romney’s dropped only four in that period. Once again, the numbers are almost exactly like February’s poll, with its matching D+11 sample.

Expect more examples of MSM polls tipping the scales in O’s favor, this year. This is going to keep happening. Our best defense is to laugh at it.

It’s encouraging that more and more people are on to it. Knowledge is power.

MORE excellent analysis of the poll via DeTechGuy:

This tells us several very important things:

1. This poll’s purpose is to deceive:

a…This poll is meant to create the image of success to those who pay no attention to the news who will hear this report only in passing.
b…This poll is meant to create an narrative of success to the far left who will ignore any news source not approved by the left.
c…This poll is meant to convince democratic donors that their contributions are going to a winner.

2. The attempt by the MSM & White House to sell “an economy in recovery” has failed:

a…Even a skewed poll can’t get the president over 50% any issue concerning the economy.
b…No amount of MSM messaging can overcome the reality of the Obama years
c…With the economy a loser the MSM will continue to push every other possible issue on the map.

3. All this talk about the GOP in trouble is false

a…You don’t create a false narrative if you have a true narrative showing you are in good shape.
b…The “War on Women” and Rough GOP primary memes have failed to move voters
c…The actual news is so bad for the president that the media dare not report it.
d…The Media and the Democrats know and understand what the actual situation is and are actively attempting to hide it.

All of this points to a single reality: 2012 is poised to be a disaster for Democrats.

•••• Morris made the same point in commenting on some deceptive polls, last week.

Gonna be a long MSM Obama stroking run up to the election. Get used to this....

[AMDScooter]

The Won whips it out and promptly steps on it again. Smartest prez evar sure acts like a functional retard... why does he hate women so?

Obama Set Up, Prepared The "Ann Romney Doesn't Work" Attack

On FoxNews, I just saw the headline, "White House passes on chance to disavow attack on Ann Romney."

Which is strange, given that Obama's campaign guys have thrown Hilary Rosen under the bus, and even Michele Obama took to twitter to claim she respects all moms, and we all ought to.

But maybe it's not so strange.

Watch this video from Breitbart, where he talks about the woman who "advised me at the law firm where we met" (a knock on Romney's statement that Ann is one of his advisers) and goes on to say "We didn't have the luxury for [Michele] not to work." And how it was hard for Michele Obama to "balance" the needs of work and child-rearing.

This is from last Friday, says John Nolte, who made this connection.

The Obama campaign would have us believe that last night on CNN Obama advisor and frequent White House guest, Hilary Rosen, spoke out of turn with her indefensible attack on Ann Romney and every woman who chooses to stay home and raise her family. But in a speech last Friday at “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” President Obama seemed to be laying the groundwork for exactly this attack.

It sure seems, then, like the White House cooked up this line of attack, and Hilary Rosen, who's been there 35 times and advises Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (in order to help her "tone it down," ironically enough), was simply delivering the Daily Two Minute Hate, as ordered by her bosses.

And in that case the White House's and the Obamas' and Messina's and Axelrod's claims of finding fault with the comment are, naturally, completely disingenuous.

By the way-- Sandra Fluke? Hilary Rosen's PR firm represents her.

Jay Carney... claims he can't confirm that Hilary Rosen has visited the White House 35 times, because he "personally" knows three women named Hilary Rosen, so, you know, who can say with any certainty which Hilary Rosen it was.

PROTIP: It was the one who works for former top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Not the one who serves coffee at Starbucks, and not the one who just got bat mitzvah'd.

Video: I know three Hilary Rosens. So maybe it was one of them.

[AMDScooter]

Pretty spot on... take your pick.

Obama Campaign Slogan Contest Winners

It’s a day late in coming, but wasn’t the wait worth it? The selection was made through a careful selection process by conducting a vote of the readership by me. All judgments are final, no takebacks or returns.

AND NOW . . . the top 10 Obama campaign slogans — written by the staunch Obama supporters here at patterico.com.

10. “Racists.” — Noodles

9. “Be happy we don’t take it all.” — Kevin M

8. “The Audacity of Indifference.” — Col. Haiku

7. “Psst! Romney se reanudarán las deportaciones.” — Sammy Finkelman

6. “All of your bucks stop here.” — Icy

5. (tie) “It’s still Bush’s fault!” — Steve
“I still blame Bush.” — daleyrocks

5. “Do the math.. On second thought, don’t actually do it.” — Sammy Finkelman

4. “Uh…” — Dustin

3. “We’re so boned, does it even matter any more?” — Gazzer

2. “Who will pay for my daughters’ $85 million spring breaks?” — nk

And the top Obama campaign slogan:

1. “Obama 2012: Are you Better Off Now Than You Were 5 Trillion Dollars Ago?” — Colonel Haiku

Colonel Haiku will receive . . . .Turtle Wax.

. . . if he buys Turtle Wax.

What? You thought you’d do better than that?

Welcome to Obama’s America!

[AMDScooter]

Hopenchange.... nope. This guy instead:

Who is this guy pretending to be president?

Has anyone seen Barack Obama recently?

You know, the optimistic hopeful fellow with the charming smile who promised so many positive things four and five years ago, how he was going to change the harsh, partisan tone of our nation's capital and bring the country together as its first African American president.

Even allowing for political hyperbole, his empty resume and the invisible witnesses from the past, Obama was such a Real Good Talker that even some who didn't vote for him still had hope that he could change some things for the better in what seemed a sadly-splintered society.

WTH did that Obama go? Have you listened recently to this Chicago Doppelganger who's replaced him? This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official.

He tries to intimidate the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, when its thinking might stray from his. He distorts history, and if no one calls him, then it's true. If he's caught, this Obama says you obviously mis-heard. Because, as everyone knows, he could never mis-speak.

The economy, like everything else adverse, is someone else's fault. But if only we borrowed and spent a trillion dollars, unemployment would stay beneath 8%, Obama promised. It soared far above. It's still above. No apology. No acknowledgment. Now, he hails any dip as proof of progress when, in fact, it comes because so many just give up seeking work.

He chastises House Republicans for their draconian budget when his Senate Democrats haven't written a single one in three years; so, the fiscal drift abides. And wait till he exaggerates the frightening things the GOP wants to do, instead of presenting his own ideas.

Obama claims credit for the bottom half of a pipeline he had nothing to do with, when he killed the top half. He brags that domestic oil drilling is up when the part he's responsible for is down.

He says no one should ever go to Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime. Then his wife, daughters and entourage do just that.

This year's Obama talks of the importance of windmills, algae and green energy, but he takes a 17-SUV motorcade to a photo op with an electric car. He lambasts oil companies for getting the same legal tax incentives (he calls them "subsidies") that other companies receive, hoping to aim anger at them so voters won't notice that gas prices have doubled since his inauguration.

Take this Tuesday. The 2012 Obama flew to Florida for an official presidential speech on the economy, then three fundraisers. That way his campaign only pays a fraction of Air Force One's $182,000 per flight hour cost. All presidents do that, though none have done near as many.

But read the four speeches. You can't tell which is official and which is political. They're all political. He can't be a real president for one lousy speech? Why the phony presidential fig leaf? To chintz the United States of America out of a few thousand bucks when he plans to raise a billion?

The Buffet Rule? Americans have always admired the successful. The only thing wrong with rich people is we're not one of them -- yet. But now he's pitting most of us against rich folks, which is him, come to think of it. The only way he's bringing us together now is to resent their paying a smaller legal rate because theirs is a different kind of income.

And speaking of taxes, whch are due Monday, how can the president of the United States allow 36 of his own White House aides to fall $833,000 behind in their tax payments?

How is that what the first Obama offered, making him an example of American success? (Hint: His GOP opponent is far richer than Obama and earned it the old-fashioned way through work, not fronting books.)

OK, Obama wants political skirmishes all over on any petty thing so people won't notice the absence of any conceivably positive record to run on. Risky when Americans start paying attention. But if that's his only card. It's all the Republicans' fault, of course. That's the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.

But whatever happened to the president part? The leader. The principled man who through his personal story, skills and charm was going to inspire, convince, cajole Americans as diverse as himself to work together for a common national success? That official part has merged with the political, like the four Florida speeches. Now, he's just trying to fool everybody about everything.

In a way, this could be good news for Republicans. The duplicate Ernst Blofeld makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Rogers.

But without real presidential leadership, Obama's hand-picked harpie atop the Democratic National Committee feels empowered to assign a hired gun to dismiss his opponent's wife, the cancer-surviving mother of five sons, as someone who's never worked a day in her life. Are they that scared already?

Seriously? We're going to pit now one kind of working woman against another? The guy who talks about having so many women in his life isn't going to fire the women responsible for that? He thinks American women will buy this stuff?

OK, Obama was raised by grandparents because he didn't always have a stay-at-home mom or dad. But this is a nation, not a dysfunctional family or a windy city party where factions are left to their own wards and Solyndras.

Obama is the guy who said his own wife was off limits politically, the guy whose mother-in-law has resided since Day One in the White House at taxpayer expense as a live-in nanny so the first lady can campaign for money and healthy foods? But a woman who stays at home with her kids at no public expense can be trashed because of her party?

We were never exactly fond of the Original Obama. But we'd take him any day over the twilight character that inhabits the Oval Office now.

[jimzinsocal]

OK. Mark thre date 4/14/12. Im gonna defend Obama over the Secret Service junk

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...itution/480236

For me its one of the few things thats beyond his responsibility really and I find it difficult to hammer the guy over the issue.
At the same time Id hope democrats dont over defend the President. Just let it go as one of those things that happens sometimes. Something similar to the guy in Afganistan that went on a rampage.

Not his fault he surrounds himself with sex fiends lol. Kidding kidding.

[AMDScooter]

Honest.. if you vote for me again I'll push amnesty cuz it's such a political winner with 88 million Americans out of the work force..

Obama promises to tackle immigration reform in second term

. . .
Addressing the sensitive topic of immigration reform, Obama blamed Republicans for the lack of progress on reform legislation and pledged he would “try” to bring up the issue in the first year of a second term.
“I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term,” he said. “I want to try this year.

“The challenge we’ve got on immigration reform is very simple; I’ve got a majority of Democrats who are prepared to vote for it and I’ve got no Republicans who are prepared to vote for it.”
. . .

Yup.... it's the repubbies fault. Guy and his party had full control of our gubberment for 2 full years and it's the oppositions fault he wasted his time spending a trillion dollars we did not have and passing an unconstitutional HC bill.

But really.. vote for him again and he promises sometime in the first year of his second term he'll blame repubbies again for his inability to do anything about it.

mamón

[jimzinsocal]

Wait...Im shocked..simply shocked. Sounds like Hannibal

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...se_637051.html

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today