Read the original here.
HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
By Charles Hurt
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.
Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place — let alone be re-elected later this year.
Consider:
• Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.
Americans, he admonished, need to do some “soul-searching.” And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.
• By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.
• Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.
By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama’s own hand-picked justices.
• Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted — 414 to zip — to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily’s blade to hide behind.
So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.
It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.
Even then, it wouldn’t be as bad as Mr. Obama’s week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush’s father threw up into the lap of Japan’s prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.
Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.
• Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Peggy Noonan is not happy with POTUS?
That's a surprise...Read the original here.
Not-So-Smooth Operator
Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.dated March 30, 2012, 6:35 p.m. ET
By PEGGY NOONAN
Not-So-Smooth Operator
Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.dated March 30, 2012, 6:35 p.m. ET
By PEGGY NOONAN
WSJ.com
Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.
It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.
What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.
Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.
The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.
All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.
I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.
In terms of the broad electorate, I'm not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.
From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?
That's what the American people were thinking about.
But the new president wasn't thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn't know it was so bad, didn't understand the depth of the crisis, didn't have a sense of how long it would last. They didn't have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.
The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the "Is America over?" part.
And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.
He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O'Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.
An American president has to make cooperation happen.
But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.
Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.
Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.
It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.
What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.
Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.
The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.
All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.
I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.
In terms of the broad electorate, I'm not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.
From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?
That's what the American people were thinking about.
But the new president wasn't thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn't know it was so bad, didn't understand the depth of the crisis, didn't have a sense of how long it would last. They didn't have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.
The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the "Is America over?" part.
And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.
He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O'Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.
An American president has to make cooperation happen.
But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.
Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.
Suprise: Al Sharpton wants to escalate the situation
Anyone else surprised? Because I'm sure that helps the situation. Read the original here.
Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free
2:22 p.m. EST, March 30, 2012|
By Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel
If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.
Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department's handling of the case.
Saturday's scheduled 11 a.m. march from Crooms Academy of Information Technology to the Sanford Police Department headquarters was organized by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Coordinators said people will be bused in from other states to participate.
The civil rights activist and syndicated television show host said he will elaborate on this plan Saturday.
"I will speak about how the National Action Network will move to the next level if Zimmerman isn't arrested," Sharpton said, who founded the organization. He added that it was the Martin family and lawyers who first asked him to get involved and nationalize this story.
TheRev. Jesse Jacksonis also expected to participate in the event.
The case has ignited ire and debate across the nation, galvanizing thousands of Trayvon supporters to the streets and social media, donning hoodies and toting Skittles.
Sanford police this week released a video of a handcuffed George Zimmerman apparently showing no visible signs of physical injury after he claimed that he shot the 17-year-old Miami teenager in self-defense.
Zimmerman's family have come to his defense on national news networks, releasing details about his version of what happened the night of Feb. 26 when police found the teen face down in wet grass.
Sharpton said the recent revelations only underscores the need for an immediate arrest and trial.
"Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone," he said. "It's not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him."
He criticized the way authorities have released information about the case and said they are setting a harmful precedent, he said.
Sanford city officials announced several road closures in anticipation of the march including 13th street, from U.S. Highway 17-92 to Lake Avenue; as well as, Persimmon Street from McCracken Road to 13th.
The demonstration is expected to end at 2 p.m., organizers said.
arehernandez@tribune.com or 407-420-5471 or @OSTrayvonMartin
Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free
2:22 p.m. EST, March 30, 2012|
By Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel
If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.
Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department's handling of the case.
Saturday's scheduled 11 a.m. march from Crooms Academy of Information Technology to the Sanford Police Department headquarters was organized by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Coordinators said people will be bused in from other states to participate.
The civil rights activist and syndicated television show host said he will elaborate on this plan Saturday.
"I will speak about how the National Action Network will move to the next level if Zimmerman isn't arrested," Sharpton said, who founded the organization. He added that it was the Martin family and lawyers who first asked him to get involved and nationalize this story.
TheRev. Jesse Jacksonis also expected to participate in the event.
The case has ignited ire and debate across the nation, galvanizing thousands of Trayvon supporters to the streets and social media, donning hoodies and toting Skittles.
Sanford police this week released a video of a handcuffed George Zimmerman apparently showing no visible signs of physical injury after he claimed that he shot the 17-year-old Miami teenager in self-defense.
Zimmerman's family have come to his defense on national news networks, releasing details about his version of what happened the night of Feb. 26 when police found the teen face down in wet grass.
Sharpton said the recent revelations only underscores the need for an immediate arrest and trial.
"Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone," he said. "It's not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him."
He criticized the way authorities have released information about the case and said they are setting a harmful precedent, he said.
Sanford city officials announced several road closures in anticipation of the march including 13th street, from U.S. Highway 17-92 to Lake Avenue; as well as, Persimmon Street from McCracken Road to 13th.
The demonstration is expected to end at 2 p.m., organizers said.
arehernandez@tribune.com or 407-420-5471 or @OSTrayvonMartin
Friday, March 30, 2012
Krauthammer on POTUS telling Russia to wait "...after my election"
Krauthammer strikes again...Read the original here.
The ‘flexibility’ doctrine
By Charles Krauthammer
The ‘flexibility’ doctrine
By Charles Krauthammer
Published: March 29, 2012
Washington Post
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26
You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.
Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections.
Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.
Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.
As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama’s intentions of flexibly caving on missile defense, they might think twice about giving him a second term.
After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.
We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?
To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?
It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized his intent to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.
Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy.
Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?
Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.
In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.
On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?
Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?
They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.
Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Washington Post
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26
You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.
Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections.
Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.
Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.
As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama’s intentions of flexibly caving on missile defense, they might think twice about giving him a second term.
After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.
We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?
To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?
It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized his intent to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.
Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy.
Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?
Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.
In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.
On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?
Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?
They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.
Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
How does POTUS pick which issues he gets involved in?
I swear I hope this just looks bad, and isn't as bad as it looks. POTUS makes public statements about a non-racial, but between different race based parties at Georgetown before an investigation, he makes public statements about the tragic death of a black teenager that may or may not have been racially motivated....because there hasn't been an investigation yet. But foreign nationals get executed by a thug and the grieving parents ask for some sort of response, and you're too busy? If I was David Cameron, I might be having some words. For a post-racial POTUS, and a unifying commander-in-chief, Barack Obama appears to only care when Al and Jesse do. And that is not company I'd want to keep. Read the original here.
Parents of murdered British students criticise Barack Obama
The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their sons' deaths.
By Paul Thompson in Sarasota
3:00PM BST 29 Mar 2012
UK Telegraph
His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.
They spoke out as teenager Shawn Tyson began a life sentence after being found guilty of the murder of James Cooper and James Kouzaris last April. The 17 year old, who shot the men as they begged for their lives, will die in prison. His conviction of first degree murder carries an mandatory life sentence without the chance of parole. The powerfully built teen even looked bored as emotional DVD presentations about the dead men prepared by their grieving parents were shown in court.
Tyson, who has the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest didn't show a flicker of emotion, slumping in his seat as he was forced to watch a montage of photos showing the victims from early childhood to young men. Two close friends of the dead men who had attended the eight day trial in Sarasota, Florida. had also delivered highly emotional impact statements to the court prior to the sentencing.
Paul Davies and Joe Hallett spoke of the "living hell" they and others who knew the men had suffered since the murders. During the eight day trial they had been shown graphic crime scene and autopsy photos shown in court. Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was "not worthy of ten minutes of his time." Davies said:"We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself. "Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply. "It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
The rebuke follows Mr Obama's personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white-Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain. The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin has sparked nationwide protests with his supporters claiming he was victim of a racist attack. Mr Obama entered the controversy last week by saying if he had a son he would have looked like Martin. The alleged assailant in Martin's death has not been charged with any crime having claimed he was attacked first and used Florida's 'stand your ground' law to shoot in self defence.
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper's parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom. The parents of the two victims did not attend the trial but they had access to the proceedings from a live video feed. The filmed interview of the Kouzaris's was played to the court while a message from Sandy Cooper was read out by the prosecutor. The victims close friends delivered an emotional impact statement with Hallett telling Tyson he hoped he would be haunted by his actions. He told him: "Imagine them being killed. Now try to imagine that they died because someone creept up on them and shot them numerous times for no good reason. Welcome to our world. Every night you go to sleep, every morning you wake up, I want you to think of my friends who you murdered. Their images will be imprinted on your conscience up until your very last breath in life."
Parents of murdered British students criticise Barack Obama
The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their sons' deaths.
By Paul Thompson in Sarasota
3:00PM BST 29 Mar 2012
UK Telegraph
His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.
They spoke out as teenager Shawn Tyson began a life sentence after being found guilty of the murder of James Cooper and James Kouzaris last April. The 17 year old, who shot the men as they begged for their lives, will die in prison. His conviction of first degree murder carries an mandatory life sentence without the chance of parole. The powerfully built teen even looked bored as emotional DVD presentations about the dead men prepared by their grieving parents were shown in court.
Tyson, who has the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest didn't show a flicker of emotion, slumping in his seat as he was forced to watch a montage of photos showing the victims from early childhood to young men. Two close friends of the dead men who had attended the eight day trial in Sarasota, Florida. had also delivered highly emotional impact statements to the court prior to the sentencing.
Paul Davies and Joe Hallett spoke of the "living hell" they and others who knew the men had suffered since the murders. During the eight day trial they had been shown graphic crime scene and autopsy photos shown in court. Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was "not worthy of ten minutes of his time." Davies said:"We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself. "Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply. "It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
The rebuke follows Mr Obama's personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white-Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain. The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin has sparked nationwide protests with his supporters claiming he was victim of a racist attack. Mr Obama entered the controversy last week by saying if he had a son he would have looked like Martin. The alleged assailant in Martin's death has not been charged with any crime having claimed he was attacked first and used Florida's 'stand your ground' law to shoot in self defence.
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper's parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom. The parents of the two victims did not attend the trial but they had access to the proceedings from a live video feed. The filmed interview of the Kouzaris's was played to the court while a message from Sandy Cooper was read out by the prosecutor. The victims close friends delivered an emotional impact statement with Hallett telling Tyson he hoped he would be haunted by his actions. He told him: "Imagine them being killed. Now try to imagine that they died because someone creept up on them and shot them numerous times for no good reason. Welcome to our world. Every night you go to sleep, every morning you wake up, I want you to think of my friends who you murdered. Their images will be imprinted on your conscience up until your very last breath in life."
CNBC wonders how Government picks who should be allowed to make money
Quote of the day? See the original here.
CNBC's Rick Santelli: "If I broke my right arm, am I going to pick a fight with the neighbor? No. If I'm two months behind on my mortgage, am I going to go complain to the bank? Probably not. But let's see, with gasoline approaching $5 a gallon, isn't this just a supreme time to pick a war with the energy people that are bringing us what already seems to be in the market's eyes in short supply? Just like picking fights with China when the world's about ready to go into recession. There's a time and a place for everything. And, by the way, all these profits Exxon's making, the administration doesn't like it. Well, what about Apple making a billion dollars a week, or Microsoft? I bet you if GM made a billion dollars a week, they wouldn't mind. Come on!"
CNBC's Rick Santelli: "If I broke my right arm, am I going to pick a fight with the neighbor? No. If I'm two months behind on my mortgage, am I going to go complain to the bank? Probably not. But let's see, with gasoline approaching $5 a gallon, isn't this just a supreme time to pick a war with the energy people that are bringing us what already seems to be in the market's eyes in short supply? Just like picking fights with China when the world's about ready to go into recession. There's a time and a place for everything. And, by the way, all these profits Exxon's making, the administration doesn't like it. Well, what about Apple making a billion dollars a week, or Microsoft? I bet you if GM made a billion dollars a week, they wouldn't mind. Come on!"
Former Ambassador John Bolton accuses administration of selling out Israel
This should be a pretty big deal if it's true. There go those international relations. Any other allies the administration hasn't dissed or thrown under a bus? If I were Korea or Australia, I'd look out. Read the original here.
Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border
Published March 29, 2012
FoxNews.com
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.
Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.
The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.
"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.
The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.
Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.
But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.
The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."
The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."
"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.
Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border
Published March 29, 2012
FoxNews.com
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.
Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.
The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.
"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.
The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.
Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.
But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.
The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."
The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."
"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Obamacare gets new adjectives
Has anyone else noticed that the administration likes adjectives? First it was "overseas contingency operations". Oh wait, I mean war. Now this. Read the original here.
WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO REBRAND MANDATE
EARNEST CALLS GOVERNMENT MANDATE 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE'
BY: Bill McMorris - March 28, 2012 3:25 pm
Washington Free Beacon
The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
Conservatives have blasted the administration for the individual mandate and only one Republican voted for Obamacare in both houses of the legislature.
Earnest deflected questions about the future of the law and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Many analysts have said that the court is likely to overturn Obama’s signature law after conservative members of the court, as well as Obama appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor, bombarded Verilli with blistering questions over the mandate.
“There have been lower court cases where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers … and conservative judges, who posed tough questions ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act,” he said.
Some also questioned the Verrilli’s performance, as he stumbled and coughed at times in defending the bill on Tuesday. Earnest defended the attorney.
“He’s one of the brightest legal minds in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “He gave a very solid performance before the Supreme Court, that’s just a fact.”
The spokesman did not know if President Obama had listened to trial transcripts, as he was flying back from Seoul, South Korea. He repeatedly said that the administration is not preparing contingency plans if Obamacare is struck down.
“We are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the law because they are important benefits,” he said, adding “we’re not, no,” when reporters asked again if alternative strategies are being considered.
“If there’s a reason or a need to consider contingencies down the line, then we will.”
The Heritage Foundation has been credited with introducing the concept of the individual mandate during the debate over Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform almost 20 years ago, but has since come to oppose it. It is not the only group that has changed sides on the issue: Obama slammed then-rival Hillary Clinton over the mandate on the campaign trail.
“We still don’t know how Sen. Clinton intends to enforce a mandate … you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it, even with the subsidies,” Obama said. “They are then worse off: They then have no health care, and are paying a fine above and beyond that.”
The mandate helped Obama win favor among the healthcare industry, which donated$2.3 million to his 2008 campaign. His fundraising among the healthcare industry has not slowed in 2012, with Obama raking in more than $360,000 from drug makers.
The Supreme Court finished its final day of hearings concerning Obamacare today, with arguments focused on whether a rejection of the individual mandate would invalidate the entire law.
The court is expected to issue a ruling in June.
WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO REBRAND MANDATE
EARNEST CALLS GOVERNMENT MANDATE 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE'
BY: Bill McMorris - March 28, 2012 3:25 pm
Washington Free Beacon
The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
Conservatives have blasted the administration for the individual mandate and only one Republican voted for Obamacare in both houses of the legislature.
Earnest deflected questions about the future of the law and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Many analysts have said that the court is likely to overturn Obama’s signature law after conservative members of the court, as well as Obama appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor, bombarded Verilli with blistering questions over the mandate.
“There have been lower court cases where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers … and conservative judges, who posed tough questions ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act,” he said.
Some also questioned the Verrilli’s performance, as he stumbled and coughed at times in defending the bill on Tuesday. Earnest defended the attorney.
“He’s one of the brightest legal minds in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “He gave a very solid performance before the Supreme Court, that’s just a fact.”
The spokesman did not know if President Obama had listened to trial transcripts, as he was flying back from Seoul, South Korea. He repeatedly said that the administration is not preparing contingency plans if Obamacare is struck down.
“We are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the law because they are important benefits,” he said, adding “we’re not, no,” when reporters asked again if alternative strategies are being considered.
“If there’s a reason or a need to consider contingencies down the line, then we will.”
The Heritage Foundation has been credited with introducing the concept of the individual mandate during the debate over Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform almost 20 years ago, but has since come to oppose it. It is not the only group that has changed sides on the issue: Obama slammed then-rival Hillary Clinton over the mandate on the campaign trail.
“We still don’t know how Sen. Clinton intends to enforce a mandate … you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it, even with the subsidies,” Obama said. “They are then worse off: They then have no health care, and are paying a fine above and beyond that.”
The mandate helped Obama win favor among the healthcare industry, which donated$2.3 million to his 2008 campaign. His fundraising among the healthcare industry has not slowed in 2012, with Obama raking in more than $360,000 from drug makers.
The Supreme Court finished its final day of hearings concerning Obamacare today, with arguments focused on whether a rejection of the individual mandate would invalidate the entire law.
The court is expected to issue a ruling in June.
Who's politicizing Trayvon Martin's death?
Umm....what? I'm continually shocked at assertions that are patently false, and the media's willingness to pass them off as the gospel truth because it's their side. Apparently "yellow is the new black" in terms of journalism. Read the original here. It's a tragedy. But it's an American tragedy when anyone, especially a child is killed. But unless proven otherwise, I'm not going to assume it's a racial thing. And which side is politicizing this? Just like to point out a couple quotes here:
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida): This is Treyvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. It's been one month, thirty days, with no arrest. I want America to see this sweet young boy who was hunted down like a dog, shot in the street, and his killer is still at large.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia): "He was executed for 'WWB' in a 'GC.' Walking While Black in a Gated Community."
Obama Campaign: Republicans "Politicizing" Trayvon Martin's Death
Posted on March 28, 2012
RealClearPolitics.com
"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.
"People have to stop politicizing it," she added. "It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida): This is Treyvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. It's been one month, thirty days, with no arrest. I want America to see this sweet young boy who was hunted down like a dog, shot in the street, and his killer is still at large.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia): "He was executed for 'WWB' in a 'GC.' Walking While Black in a Gated Community."
Obama Campaign: Republicans "Politicizing" Trayvon Martin's Death
Posted on March 28, 2012
RealClearPolitics.com
"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.
"People have to stop politicizing it," she added. "It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."
Spike Lee: what was his point?
I suppose it's a good thing he apologized for tweeting an elderly couple's address. Of course, it did take long enough. Is he going to compensate them at all for having to flee their home and stay at a hotel? At the very least, I think Spike Lee should compensate them for hotel costs, and any additional security concerns this couple has. But more than that, what was the point? Let's say he had "correctly" tweeted Zimmerman's address. Was he advocating that someone collect that Black Panther bounty? Was he sending it out for a movie style team of hitmen to go get him? Why tweet an address anyway? I mean, he tweets "Justice in court", but the implication of tweeting an address is not, wait until his fair day in court. Otherwise, wouldn't he have tweeted the court address so the public could follow the case (eventually)? Read the original here.
Spike Lee apologizes to elderly Florida couple
By Kerry Picket
March 28, 2012, 10:25PM
Spike Lee apologizes to elderly Florida couple
By Kerry Picket
March 28, 2012, 10:25PM
Washington Times
Filmmaker Spike Lee apologized to David and Elaine McClain of Sanford, Florida on Wednesday night after re-tweeting their address out to his 250,000 followers last week. Mr. Lee thought the McClain's address belonged to George Zimmerman, the 28 year old man who fatally shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin last month (background here). In a tweet Mr. Lee wrote:
"I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address.It Was A Mistake.Please Leave The McClain's In Peace.Justice In Court."
The McClains were forced to flee their home and stay at a local Sanford hotel after their address was tweeted out to hundreds of thousands of twitter followers.
Filmmaker Spike Lee apologized to David and Elaine McClain of Sanford, Florida on Wednesday night after re-tweeting their address out to his 250,000 followers last week. Mr. Lee thought the McClain's address belonged to George Zimmerman, the 28 year old man who fatally shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin last month (background here). In a tweet Mr. Lee wrote:
"I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address.It Was A Mistake.Please Leave The McClain's In Peace.Justice In Court."
The McClains were forced to flee their home and stay at a local Sanford hotel after their address was tweeted out to hundreds of thousands of twitter followers.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Someone finally calls out Jesse & Al
Finally someone calls Jesse & Al out on what they do. They never help the situation, they make their living and livelihood and stoking racial tension, not diffusing it. And explain to me the purpose of POTUS weighing in on this. This is Henry Gates all over again. Read the original here.
Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin
Published: 2:17 PM 03/26/2012
By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller
Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”
“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.
The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”
Jackson, for example, recently said Martin’s death shows how “blacks are under attack” and “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.” (SEE ALSO: Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin ‘murdered and martyred’)
George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, killed Martin, a 17-year-old black man who was unarmed at the time of his death, last month. Zimmerman has claimed to have shot Martin in self-defense and has not been charged with a crime.
But Bryant, who explores the topic of black-on-black crime in his new film “Runaway Slave,” said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”
“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”
Bryant said he wishes civil rights leaders were protesting those problems.
“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”
Bryant said he worries that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death a campaign issue in the presidential race.
He speculated that they will “turn this evolving tragedy of this young man into fodder to say… if you don’t re-elect Obama then you will have unbridled events or circumstances like this happening in the streets to young men wearing hoodies.” (RELATED: Herman Cain criticizes ‘swirling rhetoric’ after Martin shooting)
He also criticized President Obama for his “nebulous statement” responding to Martin’s death that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” “What does that mean?” Bryant asked. “What was the purpose in that?”
Monday, March 26, 2012
How can I apply for UN Style Immunity?
This is just ridiculous. I have nothing to say. Read the original here.
Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity
Updated: Thursday, 22 Mar 2012, 4:42 PM MST
Published : Thursday, 22 Mar 2012, 4:42 PM MST
(FOX News) - The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.
There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.
Whether the fund, which was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity.
Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in "fast start-up" money that has been pledged by UN member states to such climate change activities.
A 24-nation interim board of trustees for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is slated to hold its first meeting next month in Switzerland to organize the fund's secretariat and to get it running by November, as well as find a permanent home for the GCF's operations.
The board expects to spend about $6.7 million between now and June of next year.
But before it is fully operational, the GCF's creators -- 194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation's government or judicial system.
Despite its name, the UNFCCC was informed in 2006 by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs that it was not considered a UN "organ," and therefore could not claim immunity for its subordinate bodies or personnel under the General Convention that has authorized UN immunity since the end of World War II.
A UNFCCC resolution granting similar immunities would need to be "accepted, approved or ratified" by each individual member of the Kyoto Protocol before it took effect, the UN legal office advised.
Even if UNFCCC members decided to ask the UN General Assembly to grant them similar immunity it would require each UN member state to make changes in domestic legislation, the opinion declared.
According to an official of the US Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the UN are clearly envisaged.
Read more: FOX News
Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity
Updated: Thursday, 22 Mar 2012, 4:42 PM MST
Published : Thursday, 22 Mar 2012, 4:42 PM MST
(FOX News) - The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.
There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.
Whether the fund, which was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity.
Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in "fast start-up" money that has been pledged by UN member states to such climate change activities.
A 24-nation interim board of trustees for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is slated to hold its first meeting next month in Switzerland to organize the fund's secretariat and to get it running by November, as well as find a permanent home for the GCF's operations.
The board expects to spend about $6.7 million between now and June of next year.
But before it is fully operational, the GCF's creators -- 194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation's government or judicial system.
Despite its name, the UNFCCC was informed in 2006 by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs that it was not considered a UN "organ," and therefore could not claim immunity for its subordinate bodies or personnel under the General Convention that has authorized UN immunity since the end of World War II.
A UNFCCC resolution granting similar immunities would need to be "accepted, approved or ratified" by each individual member of the Kyoto Protocol before it took effect, the UN legal office advised.
Even if UNFCCC members decided to ask the UN General Assembly to grant them similar immunity it would require each UN member state to make changes in domestic legislation, the opinion declared.
According to an official of the US Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the UN are clearly envisaged.
Read more: FOX News
Quote of the Day? or Sound Politics?
I'm not sure about this one. Is this characterized arrogance, or sound politicking from a stronger position? Is he assuming the election is won? Or is he presenting a stronger argument to Putin and Russia? Read the original here.
Mar 26, 2012 6:17am
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’
Jake Tapper
ABC News
SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.
A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”
-Jake Tapper
Mar 26, 2012 6:17am
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’
Jake Tapper
ABC News
SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.
A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”
-Jake Tapper
Friday, March 23, 2012
Everyone is a unique snowflake....
Remember kids. Everyone is a unique snowflake. The world will care how you feel. Everyone will hand you what you want and feel you are entitled to, as to not upset you. This is ridiculous. This is absurd. This is modern day England. Read the original here.
Schools ban children making best friends
By HARRY HAWKINS
Published: 19th March 2012
TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don't get upset by fall-outs.
Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.
Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.
She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.
"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."
Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.
He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.
"I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.
Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."
Schools ban children making best friends
By HARRY HAWKINS
Published: 19th March 2012
TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don't get upset by fall-outs.
Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.
Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.
She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.
"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."
Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.
He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.
"I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.
Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."
POTUS claims Solyndra collapse not administration's fault; blames anyone else he can
Seriously, man up and take responsibility for your administration. This just sounds whiny and like he's trying to get out of the responsibility. Also, my opinion on a side note. This is $500 million of federal money just gone down the wishing well. All in all, not that significant for their $14 trillion budget. And he's whining this much. Yet Joe Biden wants us to believe that if the operation to get Osama went bad, he would step up and take responsibility? You don't think he'd throw Congress and Admiral McRaven and the Navy under the bus politically? I have no evidence that he would, but I believe that his past actions and statements tilt the argument that he would. Read the original here.
OBAMA ON SOLYNDRA LOAN: ‘THIS WAS NOT OUR PROGRAM’
BLAMES 'CONGRESS' AND 'THE CHINESE' FOR FIRM’S FAILURE
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 22, 2012 11:08 am
President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.
The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.
“Understand, this was not our program per se,” Obama said. “Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program…to help start-up companies get to scale.”
APM: With all respect, it was a gutsy move I think to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology, green jobs – the biggest item most people know about that strategy is, of course, a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, then went bankrupt and has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your ‘all of the above’ strategy right if that’s what we have to show for it, Solyndra?
OBAMA: We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.
Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale. And the understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies are going to do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy. Do I wish that Solyndra had gone bankrupt? Absolutely not. And obviously it’s heartbreaking it happened for the workers who were there.
Obama has previously argued that the Department of Energy program used to finance a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra “predates” his presidency.
That’s an exaggeration of the truth, according to FactCheck.org: “Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.’”
This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Video and tagged Solyndra. Bookmark thepermalink.
OBAMA ON SOLYNDRA LOAN: ‘THIS WAS NOT OUR PROGRAM’
BLAMES 'CONGRESS' AND 'THE CHINESE' FOR FIRM’S FAILURE
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 22, 2012 11:08 am
President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.
The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.
“Understand, this was not our program per se,” Obama said. “Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program…to help start-up companies get to scale.”
APM: With all respect, it was a gutsy move I think to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology, green jobs – the biggest item most people know about that strategy is, of course, a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, then went bankrupt and has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your ‘all of the above’ strategy right if that’s what we have to show for it, Solyndra?
OBAMA: We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.
Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale. And the understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies are going to do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy. Do I wish that Solyndra had gone bankrupt? Absolutely not. And obviously it’s heartbreaking it happened for the workers who were there.
Obama has previously argued that the Department of Energy program used to finance a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra “predates” his presidency.
That’s an exaggeration of the truth, according to FactCheck.org: “Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.’”
This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Video and tagged Solyndra. Bookmark thepermalink.
Free political hires...
Why hire more campaign staff, when the teacher will make students work for you for free? Read the original here.
Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
Published: 1:16 AM 03/22/2012
By Kalyn McMackin - The Daily Caller
A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.
The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.
“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.
The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.
Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.
Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.
“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”
As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.
“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.
John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.
“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.
Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.
“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”
A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”
Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.
The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.
“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”
In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”
Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.
Follow Kalyn on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/va-middle-schoolers-assigned-to-do-oppo-research-on-gop-candidates/#ixzz1pwcp15qG
Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
Published: 1:16 AM 03/22/2012
By Kalyn McMackin - The Daily Caller
A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.
The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.
“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.
The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.
Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.
Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.
“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”
As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.
“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.
John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.
“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.
Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.
“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”
A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”
Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.
The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.
“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”
In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”
Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.
Follow Kalyn on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/va-middle-schoolers-assigned-to-do-oppo-research-on-gop-candidates/#ixzz1pwcp15qG
I don't think this is going to help him...
in the Republican primaries....Read the original here.
Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney « CBS DC
March 22, 2012 10:37 PM
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”
Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.
Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”
“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”
Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”
During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.
Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”
“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”
Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”
The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”
“You’ll have the opportunity here, in the state of Texas, to speak very loudly about what kind of leader you want in this country,” he said.
Santorum said he speaks with Texas Gov. Rick Perry before scheduled campaign stops in the state. Perry sought the GOP nomination but left the race in January and endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“This is an important state for us,” Santorum said. “I’ve already spent a lot of time, I’ve already done a lot of campaign events in Texas. More than anybody else, I suspect.”
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney « CBS DC
March 22, 2012 10:37 PM
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”
Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.
Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”
“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”
Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”
During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.
Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”
“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”
Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”
The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”
“You’ll have the opportunity here, in the state of Texas, to speak very loudly about what kind of leader you want in this country,” he said.
Santorum said he speaks with Texas Gov. Rick Perry before scheduled campaign stops in the state. Perry sought the GOP nomination but left the race in January and endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“This is an important state for us,” Santorum said. “I’ve already spent a lot of time, I’ve already done a lot of campaign events in Texas. More than anybody else, I suspect.”
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Biden makes comparisons....
Really? The most audacious plan in 500 years? So he's saying that it was the most daring military action since 1512? I can think of quite a few things that might rank up there. D-Day, the rescue of the Cabanatuan prisoners come to mind immediately. This is not to take away from the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. Also, even if it was, I'd think that the credit should then go to the Navy SEALs and Admiral McRaven for planning and executing the whole operation. What do other people think, should the credit go to the President for giving the green light? I think he should get some of the credit, but the majority? Of course, in my opinion, no politician has necessarily ever deserved the lion's share of credit for a successful military operation. Read the original here.
Biden: Bin Laden killing most 'audacious' plan in 500 years
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |
3/19/12 10:00 PM EDT
Vice President Joe Biden is the biggest cheerleader of the president's decision to raid Osama bin Laden's compound and, on Monday, he offered new praise for the choice Obama made last spring.
“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there,” Biden said at a fundraiser in Morris Township, N.J.
“Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term president?” Biden asked. Obama, he said, “is willing to do the right thing and risk losing.”
Biden said he spends four to six hours a day with the president and watches him make decisions. “I’m telling you, man, this guy is not only smart as hell, he is absolutely ready to make the decision and stand back and live with it. No whining," the vice president said. "I literally do get to be the last guy in the room.”
Tickets for the fundraiser started at $1,000 and went up to $5,000 for a VIP reception. There were 140 guests and, in all, the pool reporter estimated that the event brought in about $400,000.
Biden: Bin Laden killing most 'audacious' plan in 500 years
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |
3/19/12 10:00 PM EDT
Vice President Joe Biden is the biggest cheerleader of the president's decision to raid Osama bin Laden's compound and, on Monday, he offered new praise for the choice Obama made last spring.
“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there,” Biden said at a fundraiser in Morris Township, N.J.
“Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term president?” Biden asked. Obama, he said, “is willing to do the right thing and risk losing.”
Biden said he spends four to six hours a day with the president and watches him make decisions. “I’m telling you, man, this guy is not only smart as hell, he is absolutely ready to make the decision and stand back and live with it. No whining," the vice president said. "I literally do get to be the last guy in the room.”
Tickets for the fundraiser started at $1,000 and went up to $5,000 for a VIP reception. There were 140 guests and, in all, the pool reporter estimated that the event brought in about $400,000.
Home Associations are out of control...
I don't know about other people, but I despise most homeowner and condo associations. I (and my bank) own my place, and having a group of peers that attempt to wield what little power they have like a 18th century monarch because they couldn't get elected to the city council just annoys me...on many levels. Because of things like this. This is just bullying, plain and simple. Read the original here.
NH Woman Sued For Planting Flowers In Her Front Yard
By Jim Armstrong, WBZ-TV
March 19, 2012 10:55 PM
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (CBS) – Kimberly Bois’ tiny front yard garden isn’t much to look at right now. But in a few weeks, it’ll be in full bloom, and every blossom will cost her dearly.
Even though she says her builder gave her permission to do a little planting, the current condo board now says she’s in violation.
They’re charging the Portsmouth, New Hampshire homeowner $50 a day for being so petal pushy. That fine has reached close to $6,000, plus the board’s legal fees.
“It’s just not a happy place to live anymore for me,” says Bois, who planted the small flower bed with the help of her mother, who has since passed away.
She says, “It just feels like we’ve been bullied and really all we wanted to do was have a conversation to figure out how this can benefit all of us.”
A new certified letter arrives every month, ordering Bois to uproot her garden and keeping track of her fines.
It got so bad, she contacted a Realtor friend of hers to talk about just selling the place that she has owned since 2008.
That’s when she got the real shock: the board put a lien on her townhouse for their fines.
Bois says the whole situation has, “gotten out of control.”
She even offered to pull up the flowers and pay part of the board’s legal fees a couple of weeks ago – an offer she says was refused.
The association’s bylaws don’t expressly forbid planting flowers on your property, Bois explains, nor do they explicitly allow it.
Board members have told Bois they just want all the units to look the same.
“Now we’ve gone down a rabbit hole that I just can’t seem to get out of and it’s very sad, and it’s upsetting,” she says.
WBZ reached out to the attorney who represents the condo association, but he did not respond our request for comment.
NH Woman Sued For Planting Flowers In Her Front Yard
By Jim Armstrong, WBZ-TV
March 19, 2012 10:55 PM
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (CBS) – Kimberly Bois’ tiny front yard garden isn’t much to look at right now. But in a few weeks, it’ll be in full bloom, and every blossom will cost her dearly.
Even though she says her builder gave her permission to do a little planting, the current condo board now says she’s in violation.
They’re charging the Portsmouth, New Hampshire homeowner $50 a day for being so petal pushy. That fine has reached close to $6,000, plus the board’s legal fees.
“It’s just not a happy place to live anymore for me,” says Bois, who planted the small flower bed with the help of her mother, who has since passed away.
She says, “It just feels like we’ve been bullied and really all we wanted to do was have a conversation to figure out how this can benefit all of us.”
A new certified letter arrives every month, ordering Bois to uproot her garden and keeping track of her fines.
It got so bad, she contacted a Realtor friend of hers to talk about just selling the place that she has owned since 2008.
That’s when she got the real shock: the board put a lien on her townhouse for their fines.
Bois says the whole situation has, “gotten out of control.”
She even offered to pull up the flowers and pay part of the board’s legal fees a couple of weeks ago – an offer she says was refused.
The association’s bylaws don’t expressly forbid planting flowers on your property, Bois explains, nor do they explicitly allow it.
Board members have told Bois they just want all the units to look the same.
“Now we’ve gone down a rabbit hole that I just can’t seem to get out of and it’s very sad, and it’s upsetting,” she says.
WBZ reached out to the attorney who represents the condo association, but he did not respond our request for comment.
Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria
Umm...I don't think the Russians are there to oust Assad. Which, if they were, would be pretty embarrassing to the US and their allies that the Russians took the lead. (Lead from behind, right Mr. President?) It is more likely that the Russians have arrived in Syria to protect their "investment", since Syria is one of their big weapons customers. And they're probably buying weapons a lot more now. After all, throwing civilians off of rooftops is time consuming, and takes a lot of manual effort. If the Russians are there to boost the regime, that's more worrisome than embarrassing. Read the original here.
Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria
MOSCOW, Russia, March 19, 2012
ABC News
Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria
MOSCOW, Russia, March 19, 2012
ABC News
By KIRIT RADIA (@KiritRadia_ABC) and RYM MOMTAZ
A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.
Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.
Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency. The Russian news reports did not elaborate on the Russian troops' mission in Syria or if they are expected to leave the port.
The presence of Russian troops in Syria could be a "pretty obvious" show of support to the regime, according to Russian security expert Mark Galeotti.
"No one thinks of the Russians as anything but Assad's last friends," said Galeotti, professor of global affairs at New York University.
The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evacuation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.
RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the U.S. and to the U.N. had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.
Moscow has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Assad regime, to which it sells billions of dollars of weapons. In return Russia has maintained a Navy base at Tartus, which gives it access to the Mediterranean.
Last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to send troops to Syria.
"As for the question whether I consider it necessary to confront the United States in Syria and ensure our military presence there… in order to take part in military actions -- no. I believe this would be against Russia's national interests," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to RIA Novosti.
Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.
Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.
Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency. The Russian news reports did not elaborate on the Russian troops' mission in Syria or if they are expected to leave the port.
The presence of Russian troops in Syria could be a "pretty obvious" show of support to the regime, according to Russian security expert Mark Galeotti.
"No one thinks of the Russians as anything but Assad's last friends," said Galeotti, professor of global affairs at New York University.
The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evacuation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.
RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the U.S. and to the U.N. had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.
Moscow has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Assad regime, to which it sells billions of dollars of weapons. In return Russia has maintained a Navy base at Tartus, which gives it access to the Mediterranean.
Last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to send troops to Syria.
"As for the question whether I consider it necessary to confront the United States in Syria and ensure our military presence there… in order to take part in military actions -- no. I believe this would be against Russia's national interests," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to RIA Novosti.
Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.
GE CEO changes sides?
Hmm....I had no idea that Immelt was a Republican. Seriously, he must have sold his principles down the river for the (albeit ridiculous) federal subsidies and contracts for his company. But did he really and truly believe he would be able to offset Obama's politics and economic theory? Read the original here.
Bam’s angry adviser
Immelt appalled at O’nomicsLast Updated: 12:21 AM, March 20, 2012
Charles Gasparino
NY Post
Back when he agreed to advise the Obama administration on economics, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told friends that he thought it would be good for GE and good for the country. A life-long Republican, Immelt said he believed he could at the very least moderate the president’s distinctly anti-business instincts.
That was three years ago; these days Immelt is telling friends something quite different.
Sure, GE has managed to feast on federal subsidies, particularly the “green-energy” giveaways that are Obamanomics’ hallmark.
But Immelt doesn’t think he’s had anywhere near as much luck moderating the president’s fat-cat-bashing, left-leaning economic agenda of taxing businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for government bloat.
Friends describe Immelt as privately dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left. The GE CEO, I’m told, is appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation.
Or, as one friend recently put it to me, “Jeff thought he could make a difference, and now realizes he couldn’t.”
Immelt’s conversion from public Obama supporter to a private detractor is important: It shows how even businessmen who feast off his subsidies worry about his overall economic agenda and its long-term impact on the economy.
Don’t expect Immelt to say anything publicly about the downside of president’s economic agenda anytime soon: He’s still serving as what is considered the top outside economic adviser to the White House. (A GE spokesman insists that the reports I’m sharing here about Immelt’s private criticism of Obama are “ludicrous.”)
GE has too much to lose for Immelt to publicly ’fess up to his disdain. The president now routinely talks up his desire to tax businesses that create jobs overseas, and GE overseas expansion is well-documented. Nor does the company want to put all its green subsidies at risk.
And of course the last thing Immelt or his shareholders need is for the president to turn his class-warfare fire on them, as he did to his erstwhile pals in the banking business.
Yet friends report that Immelt’s displeasure with the president’s economic policies is real and palpable in private settings.
Back in 2008, the GE boss gave both to GOP presidential nominee John McCain and, in the Democratic primaries, to Hillary Clinton; he’s said that he voted for McCain. But GE as a whole was one of candidate Obama’s top donors. As noted, Immelt joined the new president’s team, first as a member of Obama’s Economic Advisory Recovery Board and later as head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Yet even as Immelt continues to dispense advice to the president, friends tell me, he’s privately rooting for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination and defeat Obama in the fall.
A GE spokesman says simply, “Mr. Immelt has not decided to support Gov. Romney.” OK — but the GE “community” sure has. In 2008, GE execs (who often take their giving cues from the guy at the top) gave over five times more to Obama than to McCain. This time around, GE executives have raised nearly twice as much for Romney as for Obama, and Romney isn’t even the nominee yet.
I’m told a clue to Immelt’s disenchantment with the president can be found in GE’s annual letter to shareholders, in which the CEO laments, “We live in a tough era in which the public discourse, in general, is negative . . . American companies, particularly big companies, are vilified,” when “we need to work together to find a better way.”
Sure doesn’t sound like an Obama booster to me.
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP#ixzz1pf6LraId
Bam’s angry adviser
Immelt appalled at O’nomicsLast Updated: 12:21 AM, March 20, 2012
Charles Gasparino
NY Post
Back when he agreed to advise the Obama administration on economics, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told friends that he thought it would be good for GE and good for the country. A life-long Republican, Immelt said he believed he could at the very least moderate the president’s distinctly anti-business instincts.
That was three years ago; these days Immelt is telling friends something quite different.
Sure, GE has managed to feast on federal subsidies, particularly the “green-energy” giveaways that are Obamanomics’ hallmark.
But Immelt doesn’t think he’s had anywhere near as much luck moderating the president’s fat-cat-bashing, left-leaning economic agenda of taxing businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for government bloat.
Friends describe Immelt as privately dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left. The GE CEO, I’m told, is appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation.
Or, as one friend recently put it to me, “Jeff thought he could make a difference, and now realizes he couldn’t.”
Immelt’s conversion from public Obama supporter to a private detractor is important: It shows how even businessmen who feast off his subsidies worry about his overall economic agenda and its long-term impact on the economy.
Don’t expect Immelt to say anything publicly about the downside of president’s economic agenda anytime soon: He’s still serving as what is considered the top outside economic adviser to the White House. (A GE spokesman insists that the reports I’m sharing here about Immelt’s private criticism of Obama are “ludicrous.”)
GE has too much to lose for Immelt to publicly ’fess up to his disdain. The president now routinely talks up his desire to tax businesses that create jobs overseas, and GE overseas expansion is well-documented. Nor does the company want to put all its green subsidies at risk.
And of course the last thing Immelt or his shareholders need is for the president to turn his class-warfare fire on them, as he did to his erstwhile pals in the banking business.
Yet friends report that Immelt’s displeasure with the president’s economic policies is real and palpable in private settings.
Back in 2008, the GE boss gave both to GOP presidential nominee John McCain and, in the Democratic primaries, to Hillary Clinton; he’s said that he voted for McCain. But GE as a whole was one of candidate Obama’s top donors. As noted, Immelt joined the new president’s team, first as a member of Obama’s Economic Advisory Recovery Board and later as head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Yet even as Immelt continues to dispense advice to the president, friends tell me, he’s privately rooting for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination and defeat Obama in the fall.
A GE spokesman says simply, “Mr. Immelt has not decided to support Gov. Romney.” OK — but the GE “community” sure has. In 2008, GE execs (who often take their giving cues from the guy at the top) gave over five times more to Obama than to McCain. This time around, GE executives have raised nearly twice as much for Romney as for Obama, and Romney isn’t even the nominee yet.
I’m told a clue to Immelt’s disenchantment with the president can be found in GE’s annual letter to shareholders, in which the CEO laments, “We live in a tough era in which the public discourse, in general, is negative . . . American companies, particularly big companies, are vilified,” when “we need to work together to find a better way.”
Sure doesn’t sound like an Obama booster to me.
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP#ixzz1pf6LraId
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Seriously....is anyone surprised?
The Post Office, the DMV, Amtrak. The list goes on and on that shows the government doesn't run things efficiently. I don't care how much active members of government says it does. It's quite logical actually. How responsible are you when it's not your money? When it just gets replenished, or you can make more money. How stingy would you be? Of course Obamacare will cost more that "they previously thought". Name me one government program that ended up coming in under budget? Read the original here.
CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs
byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
Washington Examiner
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
UPDATE: I've done another post with additional details from the CBO report.
CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs
byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
Washington Examiner
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
UPDATE: I've done another post with additional details from the CBO report.
The hobbies of POTUS...
I'm not against POTUS having hobbies, but I should have thought of the brilliance of mixing official business with your hobby. That way, you can conduct diplomacy with the UK Prime Minister from floor seats at the NCAA Tournament. Now I wonder if I can conduct client business over Xbox live... I mean, I'm sure it's all well and good, but in the day of the bad economy, it just seems tacky to spend taxpayer money to get cushy seats at March Madness. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just PR...but it just doesn't taste good....Read the original here.
Ohio governor lobbies Obama during NCAA game
by Dave Boyer
The Washington Times
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
DAYTON, Ohio — President Obama came to see March Madness, but he also got lobbied by Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio on developing natural gas in the state.
Mr. Obama flew here on Air Force One Tuesday with British Prime Minister David Cameron to watch a first-round NCAA men’s game between Western Kentucky University and Mississippi Valley State. They were joined by Mr. Kasich and sat in the student section behind one of the baskets at the University of Dayton arena.
During the first half, Mr. Kasich talked to the president and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew at length about promoting the safe development of shale gas in Ohio.
“He’s concerned about the environment,” Mr. Kasich said. “We can do it where it’s environmentally sound, and we can get the jobs.”
The governor said his administration plans to introduce legislation this week to expand shale gas drilling, and emphasized to the president that it can be done without harming the environment.
He said development of shale natural gas “can really help us to become more energy independent. And we don’t have to sacrifice the environment to get the jobs. We can do both.”
“I wanted to let him know,” he said of the president. “You want to let him know what’ s going on on the ground. He was pleased to hear what we’re doing. I just told him that we’re moving in the right direction.”
Republicans in Washington have criticized Mr. Obama for holding up the development of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico due to environmental concerns.
Asked if they discussed gas prices, Mr. Kasich said, “A lot of this is having a chance to spend some time; I don’t want to get into all the details of what we talked about, that wouldn’t be appropriate.”
Asked if he thinks Mr. Obama will win Ohio in November, Mr. Kasich said, “Oh, it’s not a night to talk about all the election stuff. It’s a time to have some comfortable time together. It’s nice to be here, it’s nice to be included.”
The president ate a hot dog at the game, chatted with students and appeared to be explaining the finer points of basketball to Mr. Cameron.
At a cost of roughly $180,000 per hour to operate Air Force One, the trip cost taxpayers at least $365,000, not including the staff costs and other expenses.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Ohio governor lobbies Obama during NCAA game
by Dave Boyer
The Washington Times
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
DAYTON, Ohio — President Obama came to see March Madness, but he also got lobbied by Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio on developing natural gas in the state.
Mr. Obama flew here on Air Force One Tuesday with British Prime Minister David Cameron to watch a first-round NCAA men’s game between Western Kentucky University and Mississippi Valley State. They were joined by Mr. Kasich and sat in the student section behind one of the baskets at the University of Dayton arena.
During the first half, Mr. Kasich talked to the president and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew at length about promoting the safe development of shale gas in Ohio.
“He’s concerned about the environment,” Mr. Kasich said. “We can do it where it’s environmentally sound, and we can get the jobs.”
The governor said his administration plans to introduce legislation this week to expand shale gas drilling, and emphasized to the president that it can be done without harming the environment.
He said development of shale natural gas “can really help us to become more energy independent. And we don’t have to sacrifice the environment to get the jobs. We can do both.”
“I wanted to let him know,” he said of the president. “You want to let him know what’ s going on on the ground. He was pleased to hear what we’re doing. I just told him that we’re moving in the right direction.”
Republicans in Washington have criticized Mr. Obama for holding up the development of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico due to environmental concerns.
Asked if they discussed gas prices, Mr. Kasich said, “A lot of this is having a chance to spend some time; I don’t want to get into all the details of what we talked about, that wouldn’t be appropriate.”
Asked if he thinks Mr. Obama will win Ohio in November, Mr. Kasich said, “Oh, it’s not a night to talk about all the election stuff. It’s a time to have some comfortable time together. It’s nice to be here, it’s nice to be included.”
The president ate a hot dog at the game, chatted with students and appeared to be explaining the finer points of basketball to Mr. Cameron.
At a cost of roughly $180,000 per hour to operate Air Force One, the trip cost taxpayers at least $365,000, not including the staff costs and other expenses.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Umm....doesn't he have anything else to do?
I mean, sure POTUS can read books, but is there nothing better for him to do than pitch movie ideas? Has he already given up on 2012, and is looking for a new job as movie producer? To be fair, I suppose Hollywood does love him enough, that he would be able to greenlight anything he wants....until Harvey Weinstein says no... Either way, it just seems really tacky that he's pitching novel ideas for movie scripts while being POTUS. Read the original here.
Harvey Weinstein passes on movie pitch from Obama
2:57 p.m. CST, March 7, 2012
Peter Voskamp
Harvey Weinstein passes on movie pitch from Obama
2:57 p.m. CST, March 7, 2012
Peter Voskamp
Reuters
WASHINGTON, March 7 (TheWrap.com) - If you've ever had a pitch turned down by Harvey Weinstein
, you're now in some fine company. The Weinstein Co. chief disclosed thatPresident Obama
recently sent him a film idea -- which he passed on.
"The President sent me a book the other day and said 'Why don't you make this into a movie?'" Weinstein said. "I can't tell you. It was a spy novel."
But Weinstein demurred.
"I sent him an email back saying he was the most over qualified book scout I've ever had," he told the Times of London.
Weinstein is a deep-pocketed supporter of President Obama and theDemocratic Party, and recently co-hosted fundraising events for the president in New York and Los Angeles.
The Weinstein Co. said it had no comment on the pitch.
As if getting a movie pitch from President Obama wasn't enough, Harvey Weinstein on Wednesday was made a member of the French Legion of Honor.
In ceremony held in Paris, French PresidentNicolas Sarkozy honored the 59-year-old producer of "The Artist" for his contribution to cinema by making him a member of the French Legion of Honor.
"I am honored and humbled by this recognition from President Sarkozy and the people ofFrance. All my life, I have loved and been inspired by French cinema, and as a studio head it has been my pride and joy to have the ability to bring movies to audiences around the world," Weinstein said in a statement before the ceremony.
"I am still the young boy who walked to the cinema in Flushing, New York to see films by the greats - Lelouch, Godard, Renoir and my personal favorite, François Truffaut. They inspired me and led me to the place I am in today. I hope to continue my friendship with France and its filmmakers for many years to come."
WASHINGTON, March 7 (TheWrap.com) - If you've ever had a pitch turned down by Harvey Weinstein
, you're now in some fine company. The Weinstein Co. chief disclosed thatPresident Obama
recently sent him a film idea -- which he passed on.
"The President sent me a book the other day and said 'Why don't you make this into a movie?'" Weinstein said. "I can't tell you. It was a spy novel."
But Weinstein demurred.
"I sent him an email back saying he was the most over qualified book scout I've ever had," he told the Times of London.
Weinstein is a deep-pocketed supporter of President Obama and theDemocratic Party, and recently co-hosted fundraising events for the president in New York and Los Angeles.
The Weinstein Co. said it had no comment on the pitch.
As if getting a movie pitch from President Obama wasn't enough, Harvey Weinstein on Wednesday was made a member of the French Legion of Honor.
In ceremony held in Paris, French PresidentNicolas Sarkozy honored the 59-year-old producer of "The Artist" for his contribution to cinema by making him a member of the French Legion of Honor.
"I am honored and humbled by this recognition from President Sarkozy and the people ofFrance. All my life, I have loved and been inspired by French cinema, and as a studio head it has been my pride and joy to have the ability to bring movies to audiences around the world," Weinstein said in a statement before the ceremony.
"I am still the young boy who walked to the cinema in Flushing, New York to see films by the greats - Lelouch, Godard, Renoir and my personal favorite, François Truffaut. They inspired me and led me to the place I am in today. I hope to continue my friendship with France and its filmmakers for many years to come."
Legally, who has the authority to send the US to war?
Here's an exchange in congressional testimony between Sen. Sessions and SecDef Panetta. I learned in Government class, that only Congress has the authority to declare war. I know that has gotten muddy with the advent of the military action by Executive Order, but I don't recall anywhere that we have to get permission from the rest of the world in order to do anything. Am I surprised that apparently, this is the new "precedent" under this administration. Not so much. Here's the exchange:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Do you think you can act without Congress and act, and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria? Without Congressional approval?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Again, our goal would be to uh, to seek international permission and we, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach and whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm almost breathless about that. Because what I heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then you will come and tell the Congress what we might do. And we might seek Congressional approval.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Now, I want to say to you, that's a big dis-, wouldn't you agree? You've served in the congress...
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Yeah-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Wouldn't you agree? That that's...uh...would be pretty breathtaking to the average americans? So, would you like to clarify that?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
<Stutter and stammer> You know, I've also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, who have always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
But before you do this, you would seek permission from the international authorities...?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we're working with an international coalition, and we're working with NATO...we would want to be able to, be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That's something that all of these countries would want to have some legal basis on which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
What legal basis are you looking for? What, what entity?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well, obviously the UN, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one...if we, if we developed an international coalition beyond NATO, then oviously some kind of UN security resolution.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
So you're saying that NATO would give you a legal basis? And an ad-hoc coalition of nations would provide a legal basis?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we were able to put together a coalition...and we're able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. I mean, we can't just pull them all together, in a combat operation, without getting the legal basis in which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If it's um, if the UN passed a security resolution as it did in Libya, we would do that, if NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that. So we have options here, if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm all for having international support, but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don't believe it's close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Let me, just for the record, be clear again, Senator, so there's no misunderstanding. When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution, to act to defend this country. And we will. If it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations, to work together, to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia, for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by NATO or the international community.
Original Video: via Sen. Sessions Youtube:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Do you think you can act without Congress and act, and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria? Without Congressional approval?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Again, our goal would be to uh, to seek international permission and we, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach and whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm almost breathless about that. Because what I heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then you will come and tell the Congress what we might do. And we might seek Congressional approval.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Now, I want to say to you, that's a big dis-, wouldn't you agree? You've served in the congress...
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Yeah-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Wouldn't you agree? That that's...uh...would be pretty breathtaking to the average americans? So, would you like to clarify that?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
<Stutter and stammer> You know, I've also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, who have always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
But before you do this, you would seek permission from the international authorities...?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we're working with an international coalition, and we're working with NATO...we would want to be able to, be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That's something that all of these countries would want to have some legal basis on which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
What legal basis are you looking for? What, what entity?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well, obviously the UN, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one...if we, if we developed an international coalition beyond NATO, then oviously some kind of UN security resolution.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
So you're saying that NATO would give you a legal basis? And an ad-hoc coalition of nations would provide a legal basis?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we were able to put together a coalition...and we're able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. I mean, we can't just pull them all together, in a combat operation, without getting the legal basis in which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If it's um, if the UN passed a security resolution as it did in Libya, we would do that, if NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that. So we have options here, if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm all for having international support, but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don't believe it's close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Let me, just for the record, be clear again, Senator, so there's no misunderstanding. When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution, to act to defend this country. And we will. If it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations, to work together, to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia, for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by NATO or the international community.
Original Video: via Sen. Sessions Youtube:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
