Obama Administration

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

            – President Barack Obama, Inauguration, 1/20/09 

This is considered to be ….working? 

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

(H/T: The Campaign Spot)

The Progressive ideology posits that Big Government is THE answer to our problems, that simply by getting the brightest and smartest people into Government, they can "guide" us to a social utopia.  That a competent Government can smooth over the ills of everyday life.  Really?  Not if you read this:

Read more

Recieved the following by email:

If you don’t read anything else today please read the essay below by Robert Weissberg, Professor of Political Science – Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana.  It offers by far the most accurate description of what most Americans are feeling but haven’t been able to put their finger on it. Part of the problem is the fact that it’s far easier to stir up a mob with a platform of lies if the audience is both under informed and filled with a sense of entitled. Combined with the participation of the media and you have a prescription for what we have witnessed over the last two years. We must not allow any of our fellow patriots to remain in the dark. I hope you will forward this to everyone you know. It is critical ammunition in the fight to retain our individual freedom.

From American Thinker:

A Stranger in Our Midst

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I — and undoubtedly millions of others — have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America’s future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it’s not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama’s birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.

The term I settled on is "alien rule" — based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits — that generates agitation…

Read more

To the Editor:

While Bev Lapham may need to be reminded everyday about the evils of Obamacare, polls show that the majority of Americans don’t need reminders, they have consistently rejected it since last summer.  The problem as Anna DeRose so aptly put it is, “Does Washington ever listen to the American people … ?”   

On Sunday the leftists, the bribed, and the threatened voted to take over America’s healthcare system with legislation that threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every American.  The process used to get passage was the opposite of the open, ethical, and bi-partisanship promised by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid.  Legislation and deals were made behind closed doors, advocates consistently lied about the bill’s provisions, costs, critics, and about keeping your health insurance (the CBO says 8 to 9 million Americans will lose their employer provided insurance and millions more will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage), and the only bi-partisanship on this bill was in opposition as republicans were joined by democrats who could not be threatened or bribed into ignoring the will of their constituents.         

The lives and quality of life of American seniors are threatened by the $500 plus billion cuts from Medicare, in fact 33 million Seniors will be at risk of losing access to medical care according to the Medicare Chief Actuary.  Seniors see Canada, Britain, California and other places where people have government insurance but cannot get a doctor or cannot get treated when needed, and they see this increasingly happen here.

Obamacare creates a bureaucracy which shields politicians when government denies medical care.  If they get sick, Seniors know they may be worth more dead than alive to a government which controls the healthcare they will receive by rewarding or punishing doctors based on their conformance to political and bureaucratic guidelines as happens today in other government controlled systems.  So some seniors will live in pain.  Other seniors will be denied lifesaving care and will die, not only saving medical costs but ending social security payments and perhaps filling government coffers with estate taxes.                     

Americans know proponents have lied about the financial viability of Obamacare.  They know that you can’t claim a deficit neutral system when you raise taxes and cut costs for ten years to pay for only six years of coverage.  They know there won’t be big savings from reducing fraud, how much additional fraud did the President cut last year?  (No extra authorization is/was needed to fight fraud.)  They know that other integral costs have been taken out of the bill and will be added later.  Also ignored are the increased taxpayer costs at the State level to support millions more Medicaid recipients.       

Americans have had a healthcare and health insurance system which satisfies the overwhelming majority of Americans, including millions who have been covered very well for expensive procedures.  Americans know that fixing this system’s relatively small problems (albeit sometimes individually devastating) are best done with small changes not a government takeover.
 
At President Obama’s health care summit, Americans learned that agreements could have been reached last year to fix those problems and start helping people last year.     

But, President Obama and today’s leftist Congress demand a government takeover of the whole healthcare and health insurance system.  They demand another costly new Federal bureaucracy to manage healthcare.  They will  restrict your health insurance choices to fit their objectives, not your needs.  Most people will see premium increases rather than President Obama’s promised $2500 decrease.  If Obamacare is so great, why do they need to hire 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce it and even threaten jail for non-compliance?  Is the IRS the new kinder, gentler face of the Obama government?   

Representative John Dingle just told us why it takes so long for the new heathcare “reforms” to roll out, “It takes a long time to set up the mechanisms to control 300 (million) people.”  Was Obamacare sold as being a way to “control” the American people?  Is that  what the American people want, to be controlled by government?   

Is Obamacare being done to help really poor people?  No.  The really poor people are…

Read more

Well, I’m not all that surprised at the reactions – if you are on the Left, this was (at least, spoken out loud) equal to sliced bread.  On the Right, not so much.  I took it to be rather long, disjointed, and at the end, wondering about his speech writers.  Of course, TOTUS is starting to become a bore and given the ubiquity of it everywhere, I think most have come to the conclusion that he can’t give a cogent speech without it.  I guess we can just think of it as the equivalent of his binky, blanket, or Amex card – for all ages (as we found out with our kids), one should never leave home without them.

All that said, what it really comes down to is how did the operator / Talent / President do?  During the campaign, he always seemed to keep his cool. Last night, though, he had another "face" – one that was more biting, more angry; like a father dressing down recalcitrant kids, or a teacher trying to maintain control over a classroom full of class clowns.  In other words, someone trying to fight to maintain (or regain) control of the situation.  

Much of it was standard fare, but on more occasions than necessary, rather than sounding and being Presidential, he came off as being simply petty.  Or what he really is: a Community Organizer – which really showed last night.  A C.O. needs an enemy to focus on, to ridicule, to make hay against, and thus, have a target to rally his troops to attack.

Problem is, he’s trying to pit Congress and Senate and the Supreme Court all against each other while still doing what a C.O. does which is remain in the background and keep his troops in front of him.

Problem is, it is hard to be in that background when you are the President at the State of the Union address.  And that presented the problem to Obama, as he can be a campaigner, he can be a C.O., but seemingly is having more and more problems in being successful at what he is being paid to do: be President.  And last night, it showed.  And I’m not the only one:

Jules Crittenden: “But seriously, we have just witnessed an extraordinary exercise in presidential oratorical animation that may be without peer or precedent. Can it be said that any American president has ever tried to blame so much on other people, or has been willing to so rapidly abandon his own principles for the betterment of his standing with the people, to seize up the banner against himself in our nation’s time of need, that this nation should not stand against him? For this, the president deserves our unabashed, gaga-eyed astonishment.”

John Podhoretz: “One liberal trope after the speech, voiced by Chrystia Freedland of the Financial Times on Charlie Rose, is that Obama is putting Republican politicians on notice he will go after them as the do-nothing impeders of progress. Republicans should pray this is the case, and it may be the case.” In New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts he’s proven impotent. Why should people fear him more now, when he’s weaker?

Prof. Randy Barnett: In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds [of] Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

and the most devastating: Meryl Yourish

Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.

Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.
That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Problem is

Read more

Last night President Obama finally gave us his long awaited answer to the question of what we should do about Afghanistan. As a candidate for the U.S. Congress, I very reluctantly endorse his decision to add an additional 30,000 troops to that conflict.
 
However, serious questions remain to be answered about the decision making process leading up to this decision, the viability of this escalation, as well as the underlying strategy itself. Oddly, the President took a full three months to give us a slightly scaled down version of General McChrystal’s request. His delay has unfortunately brought into question both his resolve and his strength as a leader. It has also fed into the growing domestic and international view of timidity in this Administration.
 
In the end, what the President gave us was a strategy which merely buys another year and a half for Afghanistan to build up its forces and for us to exit somewhat gracefully. The odds are very high that neither will happen as planned. Since he merely stated that “after eighteen months our troops will begin to come home,” he has merely kicked the can down the road and bought us additional time.
 
What the President knows but did not say is that the real key to this equation is not Afghanistan but Pakistan. Pakistan is currently the most dangerous country in the world. It is now a highly unstable nuclear power that is rapidly coming apart at the seams. The nightmare scenario is that Pakistan collapses and nuclear weapons get into the hands of Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban.
 
Chaos is Afghanistan would further destabilize Pakistan. Our presence will help keep Afghanistan together and serves to provide at least a partial buffer against insurgent incursions across Pakistan’s border. It is also prudent for us to be close by in case the situation in Pakistan collapses.
 
Fortunately, the President quickly took off the table a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan as many Democrats have urged. Such a measure would have lead to a major power vacuum in the country and another protracted civil war. Al Qaeda would have been handed a huge political and psychological victory both in Afghanistan and around the world.
 
Still, the newly announced strategy carries with it numerous inherent problems and contradictions. Some of the open issues include:

Read more