Perhaps one of the biggest political stories of the year is being completely overlooked by the Obama-struck mass media. A new biography by veteran author Christopher Andersen, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," reveals that former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers wrote most, if not all of President Obama's book "Dreams From My Father."
In a series of American Thinker articles over the past year, PhD author and columnist, Jack Cashill has been asserting just that. But while he found striking similarities between the two men's writing styles he could never conclusively prove Ayers' ghost authorship. Andersen's book does.
Cashill relates: "relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published -- just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams.
"With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from 'his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' Despite a large advance, Obama found himself 'hopelessly blocked.' After four futile years of trying to finish, Obama ‘sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' This he did 'at Michelle's urging.'"
Andersen explains their rationale: "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be?"
I don't know, but it was certainly considered a secret by candidate Obama, and the media bent over backwards to keep it that way.
This was not the first time Mr. Obama was "blocked" either. Shortly after he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, an aggressive literary agent named Jane Dystel secured a $125,000 advance from Simon & Schuster for him to write his book. An astounding sum for a first-time author, he never delivered. After years of waiting, the publisher dropped him.
Dystel then secured him a second advance for $40,000 from Random House, and in 1995 "Dreams" was finally published. After gaining his U.S. Senate seat, Mr. Obama summarily dumped Dystel in favor of someone cheaper. She was understandably infuriated. It is worth noting that as editor of the Harvard Law Review, Mr. Obama wrote one short article. For such a supposedly gifted writer this is truly odd. And as Cashill has noted, Obama's few other writing samples are "sophomoric".
Andersen concludes: "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."
During his campaign, candidate Obama took great pains to distance himself from Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the many other radicals he knew. But investigation by many independent journalists overcame the media blackout to reveal extensive connections between the two men.
It is old news now that Ayers and Obama served on the boards of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund together, but in total, Obama worked with Ayers and other radicals on least six related non-profit boards and shared the same office for three years with Ayers and fellow radicals, Susan and Mike Klonsky.
Now this latest revelation about Ayers' ghostwriting suggests that not only did they work together, but Ayers essentially gave Obama his voice.
All this has somehow been lost on mass media's intrepid investigative journalists. Nary a peep.
Barack Obama is no literary giant. Furthermore, his steadfast refusal to provide any concrete information about any details of his past, his college grades, past job performance, or even voting record in the Illinois Senate, makes one wonder if Mr. Obama has any qualifications -- besides a polished public persona -- at all.
He is looking more and more like a mere construct, a carefully crafted mouthpiece for a cabal of anonymous radicals furiously working to secure a permanent foothold in the halls of power. Consider just a few of his "Czar" picks:
Kevin Jennings the openly homosexual "Safe Schools Czar" who encouraged pedophilia;
Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar" who believes, among other things, that animals should have the right to sue humans in court;
Van Jones, like Ayers, a self-described communist, fortunately resigned under a cloud. As "Green Jobs Czar," Jones was to distribute stimulus money based on formulas worked up by the Apollo Alliance, run in NY by Jeff Jones. No relation to Van, Jeff is an old Weather Underground friend of Bill Ayers;
Valerie Jarrett -- the "other side of Obama's brain," -- has spent a lifetime working with and around the American Communist Party and is thoroughly plugged-in to Chicago radical networks. Valerie is the one who recruited Ron Jones.
The list goes on and on. The challenge is finding anyone even remotely moderate.
Obama's early denial of Ayers is ringing ever hollower. Rather than being just "some guy in my neighborhood," Ayers and Obama are fused at the hip. And Ayers is typical of the rabid, anti-American lunatics Barack has surrounded himself with.
William Tate That peculiar sound you hear is the sound of ten million of your tax dollars being flushed down Barack Obama's ego. Obama returned to Washington Friday from a Olympic lobbying junket that went over even flatter than his healthcare numbers.
The Lobbyist in Chief, who railed against lobbyists during the 2008 campaign, had a rough week.
After laying a trap to ensnare the mullahs of Tehran over their nuclear ambitions, Obama was rolled in Geneva by the Iranians, who had tricked him into accepting another round of delaying tactics.
He was publicly embarrassed by his top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, who admitted to 60 Minutes that Obama had talked to him exactly once. (McChrystal was hastily called to Denmark to meet with Obama on Air Force One for 25 minutes.)
Obama's poll numbers continue to droop even lower than David Letterman's morals, and Gallup reports more and more of the public are aligning themselves with Republicans.
ObamaCare remains bottled up in Congress, even as an all-time high percentage of Americans (56%) oppose it, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Obamanomics continues to be a miserable failure. The government reported Friday that unemployment rose to a 26 year high, employers shed another 263,000 jobs in September, and factory orders fell in August. After the $787 billion stimulus package Obama rammed through. Obama wasn't actually in the country to hear those numbers. Maybe escaping the dismal Obamanmics news was one of the reasons he and many of his Chicago-machine cronies jetted to Copenhagen, after saying he wouldn't go there, on the taxpayers' dime.
Then, to add injury to insult, members of the International Olympic Committee apparently weren't as impressed with Obama's forensic skills as the Big Media wing of the Democrat Party is. Not only did Obama fail to bring home the Olympic bacon, the teleprompter king didn't even give the best speech to IOC delegates. The Times of London noted,
"(The) vote might have been split on the quality of delivery, but IOC members would have been in no doubt about who had the most compelling message... Sepp Blatter, the chief executive of Fifa, the world governing body for football, said (Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula) de Silva's speech 'went under his skin.' "
Maybe Obama's teleprompter was suffering from jet lag.
I am a counter terror major and in law enforcement. I decided to start a website project. Its a grass roots site for all Americans to come, get news, read articles written by experts, and read articles by daily Americans. Its designed so anyone can apply to become an author, contribute an article, or simply leave comments. I am gathering various experts with their own columns so people can read their work. One expert on their as of now is a retired CIA field operative on 20 years.
Lobbyists Annoyed With New Obama Regulations Posted: 10/5/09 K Street is awash in anger over new regulations designed to limit influence peddling in Washington, CQ Politics reported Monday. The new policy, announced Sept. 23 by President Obama's "ethics czar," Norm Eisen, prevents federally registered lobbyists from serving on "agency advisory boards and commissions" -- private-sector advisory panels created in the 1970s to give input to the government on various issues. The regulations could decimate the ranks of lobbyists who have been serving on the panels, and who the Obama administration sees as special-interest agents with an unhealthy proximity to federal policy.
Government agencies seem to have acted on the administration's word quickly. Roll Call obtained a letter sent last week from the Commerce Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative saying that lobbyists currently serving on the panels would not be reappointed when they re-charter in 2010 and 2011.
Private-sector clients will now have to pass up registered lobbyists for others who qualify to serve on the panels, and the prospect of a mass exodus from the highly prized positions has not made certain lobbyists happy. "There is fury," said a lobbyist who sits on one of the committees. "Absolute fury."
This might be a good thing as it reduces influence peddling.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-06-2009).]
Note: I didn't reproduce the article here because it is LOADED with cross reference links. It's gonna take some time to check out all the references on this one. Enjoy.
Christi Parsons and James Oliphant of the LA Times:
At a White House meeting aimed at tempering increasingly politicized debate over the war in Afghanistan, President Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday that he does not plan to dramatically reduce the American troop level or switch to a strictly counter-terrorism mission. Asking for patience until he completes an assessment of the situation over the next few weeks, the president urged lawmakers to keep their minds open to a nuanced range of options. Obama did not indicate to the bipartisan group whether he is leaning toward or against a significant troop escalation. Instead, he suggested he is looking at the middle range of the spectrum, somewhere between a major increase in forces and a large drawdown. "The president reiterated that we need this debate to be honest and dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," one senior administration official said after the meeting ended. Still, the 90-minute session demonstrated the growing pressures on the president, who has to contend with many fellow Democrats hesitant to increase American troop levels and Republicans eager to boost the war effort. Several people in attendance said some Republicans openly embraced the recent analysis of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in the Afghanistan effort, who has recommended sending as many as 40,000 additional troops.
Wishy washy leaders always split the difference. It's a way to avoid making a decision while offending no one and satisfying nobody. And it is apparent that the president has already rejected the best advice of his commanding general on the ground in Afghanistan and, if there is a troop increase, it will be for show only, and not materially affect the security situation. This is exactly the kind of "decision making" one would expect from a community organizer. I'm surprised they didn't build a campfire in the Oval Office and Obama had everyone hold hands and sing "Kumbaya." There are times when building consensus is the pre-eminent task of a president. There are times when a president must sit back and allow his advisors to go at it until he chooses the right time to move in and settle a dispute. There are even times when it is best that a president does nothing. This is not one of those times. If ever a situation cried out for crisp, decisive leadership by a commander in chief, this is it. We are not getting that. We are not getting anything close. We are between a rock and a hard place in Afghanistan, the commanding general has asked for help, the country is unsure, the Congress is split, his own advisors are wavering - and the president of the United States wants to split the difference to make everyone happy? Damn him.
Poll: Obama's Approval Rating Going Back Up The new AP/GfK poll finds that President Obama has a 56% approval rating, up from 50% in September -- and the first time that his approval rating has increased in the AP/GfK surveys. Disapproval is at 39%, down from 49% last month.
What has he done to have his numbers go up? Is this poll screwed? This was a big story on the news this morning. Is the media twisting things again?
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-07-2009).]
What has he done to have his numbers go up? Is this poll screwed? This was a big story on the news this morning. Is the media twisting things again?
Of course. The assholes are desperate. THEY KNOW Obama is a sinking ship, that he's managed to do something that liberals had not yet done - gotten conservatives so pissed off that they are organizing and protesting - so they must know the end is in sight. Liberals got absolute power, and promptly screwed the pooch so hard and fast that the majority of the public woke up and said "I don't think so!", including the independents and even some Democrats.
If they news media has to admit that Obama, Pelosi and the liberals are the utter failure that they are showing themselves to be, imagine what that means for them? They lose their position as purveyors of the truth. Well, when you peddle bullshit to people with functioning noses, it's tough to hide the smell. And the general public is tired of the smell.
What has he done to have his numbers go up? Is this poll screwed? This was a big story on the news this morning. Is the media twisting things again?
I saw the same thing on AOL. They had an online poll of 4 questions and in thier poll only 25% approved of the way he is handling things like health care reform, economy, taxes, and the war.
Poll results can be scewed by the questions ask and who was ask. The results of your last poll show a high number who said they voted for McCain, which means those questioned were republicans and that would slant the results. Of course those that elected Obama were from metropolitan areas, while those from rural areas supported McCain.
If I recall there are select areas of the country that if you win those areas, you win the election and you don't need the rural states like N Dakota, S Dakota, Utah etc as their electoral votes don't outweigh New York's which is heavily weighted by the liberal New York City vote, which nearly sways that state election to the democratic side at every election.
Kerry: Killing the Economy is How We Reduce Emissions By Steve Everley on October 5, 2009 12:28 PM Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently introduced the Senate version of the energy tax, let the cat out of the bag about what we have to do in order to meet the requirements of their devastating bill: prolong the recession. Kerry said:
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."
The co-author of the newest incarnation of the devastating energy tax has made it clear: The downturn in the economy is a good thing, and we need to make it even worse. In fact, by Senator Kerry's logic, we would need to make the economy more than twice as bad as it currently is in order to meet the goal of Boxer-Kerry (or is it Kerry-Boxer?)
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 4, 12:47 pm ET WASHINGTON – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan predicted on Sunday that the jobless rate will pass 10 percent and stay there for a while, and a second stimulus plan is not needed now.
He spoke favorably of extending unemployment benefits and tax credits for health insurance, options the Obama administration is considering for helping people laid off during the recession. With more than 15 million people out of work, unemployment reached 9.8 percent in September, the highest rate in 26 years.
"This is an extraordinary period and temporary actions must be taken, especially to assuage the angst of a very substantial part of our population," Greenspan said on ABC's "This Week."
"I don't actually consider those types of actions stimulus programs. I think that they are essentially programs which support people — essentially their living standards in part. I grant you it has a stimulus effect, but that would be my primary focus," he said.
Calling the jobs report released Friday "pretty awful," Greenspan said he is particularly concerned with statistics showing the number of people out of work for six months or more has reached 5 million after going up sharply last month.
"People who are out of work for very protracted periods of time lose their skills eventually," he said. "What makes an economy great is a combination of the capital assets of the economy and the people who run it. And if you erode the human skills that are involved there, there is a real and, in one sense, an irretrievable loss."
Looking ahead on the unemployment picture, he said his "own suspicion is that we're going to penetrate the 10 percent barrier and stay there for a while before we start down."
The former Fed chief said he would recommend that President Barack Obama focus on trying to get the economy going but without doing so much that the government's action are counterproductive. With growth for the third quarter appearing to reach or surpass 3 percent, Greenspan said he would not propose a second stimulus package.
"In my judgment it's far better to wait and see how this momentum that has already begun to develop in the economy carries forward," he said.
Greenspan against expressed his concern over the growing size of the federal deficit and the federal debt.
Sen. Evan Bayh, who's on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said he, too, is waiting for the remainder of the job-related stimulus initiatives to take effect.
"If I'd been drafting the package, I would have tried to have it go into effect sooner and have more of it directly related to jobs," Bayh, D-Ind., said on "Fox News Sunday." "But it is what it is at this point. It continues to go into the economic bloodstream and to keep things, which, as unsatisfying as they are, from being a whole lot worse."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said an energy bill promoted by Democrats could serve as a jobs stimulus because it focuses on using venture capital to fund "clean energy" jobs.
But Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Democrats would best help the economy by supporting targeted tax relief and dropping "job killers" such as the proposed cap-and-trade approach to climate change and a health care bill that he said would raise taxes on small businesses.
Boxer and Kyl appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."
In an effort to disguise the devastating truth behind the Senate energy tax, Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have renamed the cap-and-trade element of the bill to "Pollution Reduction and Investment" or PRI.
The reason for this is obvious: Supporters of the energy tax know that getting enough votes in the Senate will be tough with such widespread criticism of a cap and trade system. And rather than addressing the flaws of the energy tax or scrapping the bill for a real energy policy, they have chosen just to rebrand the same flawed concept with new terminology.
But changing the phrasing of "cap and trade" is not the only way that Boxer and Kerry are trying to repackage damaged goods.
The duo have chosen to put Kerry in the lead author slot, which, according to the New York Times, is an attempt to reframe the debate on national security grounds:
In interviews this week, the senators cited Kerry's experience in the global warming debate for some two decades, as well as his work on foreign policy and military issues.
Several sources on and off Capitol Hill said Boxer's deference to Kerry speaks to how the lawmakers are trying to frame the climate debate around national security.
"That'd not be a theme that'd wear well with Barbara Boxer, she's not at all associated with that issue," said one industry lobbyist. "To the extent they want to make this bill about something other than just environmental issues, you need other voices. He's a good one for security."
One reason that they might want to push the national security aspect is that the energy tax won't have any noticeable environment impact. Of course, this means they're going to have to explain how making America more reliant on foreign oil and driving up the cost of energy is a sound national security argument.
Americans are smarter than this and can see through such blatant attempts to mask the truth. The reality about the Senate energy tax is that it will kill the economy, as John Kerry admitted last week, regardless of whether it's called "cap and trade" or "pollution reduction and investment" or even "rainbow ice cream."
It's okay to admit it: you thought you were voting for a more benevolent and wiser version of Tiger Woods when all you got was a smoother version of Chicago-style, brass knuckle politics. It isn't so much that you voted for the wrong guy; you were lied to by the media.
But you should have known better. Chicago has a long and storied run of thoroughly corrupt political bosses giving envy to any third-world dictator. Barack Obama also ran around with loony-tune communists and wild-eyed radicals including his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who makes the loosest of cannons seem laser-guided. Then he tells us absolutely nothing about himself other than what is in his -- not one but two -- autobiographies.
If you scratch below the surface -- not too hard since there isn't much there -- you find a different human being, one entirely at variance with what you find in the media or his autobiographies. It is a man driven not to overcoming obstacles but stuck on them, still living in his past. The case of Barack Obama is one of a deep, deep inferiority complex from his childhood and he just seems unable to rise from it.
Looking at BHO from another angle shows the real man. He was conceived out of wedlock while his mother was in college. His childhood consisted of a father who abandoned him as an infant -- unwanted -- and he was raised by another man in another country through many of his formative childhood years. He didn't look like his Indonesian adopted father or his white mother in an Asian culture. As he grows up, he is introduced to marijuana and cocaine. The people he hangs around with are avowed communists and radicals --strange, hateful people and the ideologues on whom Barack Obama cuts his philosophical teeth.
Just out of college, he writes his first autobiography that is filled with errors at best, lies at worst. He wants the world to see him differently than what he really is. There is no attachment in his life, and just like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon before him, the crowd takes the place of a physically or emotionally absent father.
Obama is different, though. The hate is still brewing inside him. His only foundation consists of communists who turn his inferiority into narcissism, a common result of an inferiority complex. He wants to change America and reflect his image. Now, as president, he can do so with a stroke of the pen or the whim of his will. He can mete out his vision for America on an unsuspecting public.
Nobody thought in years past a man such as Barack Obama, almost completely inexperienced and un-vetted, would ever occupy the White House. Surely, the head of the Executive Branch would never abuse the office as he has. It is all about Barack Obama and his fellow-travelling media.
You were lied to and straight-faced from the beginning. He was supposed to be the One, but what you got was politics as usual, this time with no inhibitions toward power, a shrewd and crooked power grab. American wanted to believe in a dream of racial reconciliation, so they believed the media-generated images and blocked out warnings from conservatives about Obama's troubling and troubled past.
No wonder BHO apologizes for America. He is out for revenge, thanks to an inculcation of other self-loathers that surrounded him since he was a boy. This is a deeply wounded man who will stop at nothing to seek vengeance on a way of life here in America.
It's time to admit it: you were played for a fool. Surprise, surprise, America, you are waking up to find you've been punk'd.
Barack Obama's Top 10 unfulfilled pledges Less than nine months into his four-year term of office, President Barack Obama's record is already one of abandoned promises, sidelined issues and lack of action. PolitiFact, a political accountability project run by Florida's St Petersburg Times, has formulated an "Obamameter" gauge that registers seven broken promises, a dozen stalled initiatives and 117 pet projects still "in the works".
Here is the top 10 list of most glaring examples of Mr Obama falling short in key areas he trumpeted during his campaign.
1.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama said he would "not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days". But the "sunlight before signing" promise has already fallen by the wayside with Mr Obama signing three major bills without public scrutiny.
2.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama repeatedly said he would negotiate health care reform in televised sessions broadcast on C-SPAN, the public service network. Instead, he his approach has been no different from his predecessors, holding talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress.
3.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama solemnly pledged that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years". In practice, Mr Obama has granted several waivers to this rule, allowing lobbyists to serve in the top reaches of his administration.
4.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama said he would end income tax for the elderly making less than $50,000 per year, thereby eliminating taxes for seven million of them. This has not been part of his economic stimulus bill, his first budget outline or any legislation proposed by the White House.
5.PROMISE STALLED. On taking office, Mr Obama announced with great fanfare that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp would be closed within a year of his inauguration on January 20th. Defence officials now concede that this self-imposed deadline will not be met.
6.PROMISE SIDELINED. Mr Obama promised to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits openly gay personnel from serving in the United States armed forces. Despite reiterating the pledge this weekend, Mr Obama shows no signs of taking concrete action on the issue.
7.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama said that in 2009 and 2010 "existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired". Democrats on Capitol Hill opposed this and Mr Obama has quietly abandoned the proposal, omitting it from his list of requirements for draft legislation.
8.PROMISE BROKEN. During the campaign, Mr Obama promised that "as President I will recognise the Armenian genocide" carried out by the Ottoman Empire after 1915. Once in office, he travelled to Turkey and made no mention of genocide. In a statement in April on the memorial day for the genocide he spoke of the "heavy weight" of history and the "terrible events " of the period but failed the use the g-word.
9.PROMISE SIDELINED. As a candidate, Mr Obama highlighted his support for abortion rights, stating he would back this up "by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president". At a press conference marking his first 100 days, Mr Obama said this was "not my highest legislative priority" and that it was important to "focus on those areas that we can agree on".
10. PROMISE SIDELINED. Mr Obama promised to end warrantless wiretaps on the domestic communications of Americans and to "update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability". So far, he has taken no action.
Rick Moran The oldest liberal magazine in the country is telling the president to stop whining and face his critics.
Writing in The Nation , John Nichols points out that President Obama is only coming off as a whiner by criticizing Fox News and liberal bloggers:
An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants. But before the president and his inner circle go all Spiro Agnew on us, they might want to consider three fundamental facts regarding relations between the executive branch and the fourth estate:
1. Since the founding of the republic, media outlets (the founders dismissed them as "damnable periodicals") have been partisan. White House communications director Anita Dunn was not exactly breaking news when she told CNN's "Reliable Sources" that Fox was neither fair nor balanced. "What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," grumbled Dunn. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Fox hosts do go overboard in their savaging of Obama and the Democrats -- sometimes ridiculously so. But their assaults on the president are gentle when compared with the battering that Benjamin Franklin Bache's Philadelphia Aurora administered to John Adams (appropriately) or the trashing that Colonel McCormick's Chicago Tribune gave Franklin Roosevelt (inappropriately).
Nichols concludes, "[N]o attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo -- does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief." Nichols doesn't come right out and say it but this administration is the most hypersensitive bunch I've ever seen. They don't try to "spin" the news. They try to browbeat reporters into writing what they want, and any criticism is either met with a veiled reference to race or dismissed as a "distraction." Nichols wonders why Obama won't face his critics. That's an easy one; he's incoherent without a script. Why this fact hasn't dawned on much of the press yet is a mystery. And those that know it apparently seek to protect Obama from the fallout. Not that it really matters that much, but Obama would do well to listen to voices on his left. He seems to have a knack these days for alienating everyone - even his friends. Considering the tough road ahead on getting health care reform passed, that spells bad news - for him.
The White House really stepped in s*** now. First, they declare war on Fox News and assign Anita Dunn to watch them and try to catch them making errors. Then today, Glenn Beck strikes back. He played a video of Anita Dunn, speaking at a high school last May or June, saying how much she admires Mao Tse Tung. That he's one of her two most influential people (the other is Mother Teresa. Go figure). Yeah, that Mao, the head guy of the Communist Chinese revolution. Killed millions. THAT Mao. And yet another White House staffer who just LOVES communism, or at least a particular communist.
How many communists will we tolerate in the White House? If it was a Republican (say, a Bush staffer), and they said how much they admire Hitler, wouldn't there be universal outrage?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10. This is the fourth straight day the Approval Index has been in negative double digits (see trends).
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure has stayed in a very narrow range between 47% and 52% every day for more than six weeks. Fifty percent (50%) now disapprove.
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.
I am a counter terror major and in law enforcement. I decided to start a website project. Its a grass roots site for all Americans to come, get news, read articles written by experts, and read articles by daily Americans. Its designed so anyone can apply to become an author, contribute an article, or simply leave comments. I am gathering various experts with their own columns so people can read their work. One expert on their as of now is a retired CIA field operative on 20 years.
Wow, that's a pretty decent site, and you have some good stuff on there. You've GOT to get rid of the "coming soon" stuff though, it really cheapens the entire site.
Looks great though!!! I'm going to start following it.
On September 8th President Obama told ABC news "...... Democrats and Republicans understand that I'm open to new ideas, that we're not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year." The idea that the Obama administration is open to new ideas and that they are not rigid or ideological is false on its face. The administration, in conjunction with Democrats in Congress, have worked to keep Republican sponsored ideas and legislation off from the floor of both the House and the Senate and out of the headlines. Obama and the Democrats have steadfastly refused to seriously address ideas like tort reform even though such measures lowered costs in Texas and increased the number of doctors practicing in that state.
The most recent example of the President's distaste for any idea that doesn't emanate from the bowels of the Democratic machine is the relentless haranguing of Fox News by the Obama administration. What is clear to anyone that is paying attention is that the President doesn't want competing ideas heard, and with a near lock on other media outlets there is only one mass media outlet (Fox) where a competing idea can even be seen. The fact that criticism of the current Democratic plans resonate with several different voting blocs further aggravates the Obama administration.
It doesn't matter if one looks at the current administration's action toward Fox News as an Alinsky tactic or a distraction, the aim is the same: squash dissenting opinion and ideas while working to pass legislation before it can read or debated. The tactics of the Obama administration are exactly the opposite of what one would expect from people that claim that they are fighters. Instead of reveling in the debate and winning in the court of public opinion with a better idea, Obama prefers to play as he has in the past: by eliminating the competition and pushing bills that are advertised one way but turn out to be another.
Expect the same sort of "transparency" we saw with the stimulus package, a bill that was released moments before a vote was taken, or protests registered. What really bothers the Obama administration is the legislation that the Democrats are attempting to pass is being communicated to the American people and the American people aren't buying it.
By targeting a media outlet it's clear that what Obama wants is control, not any of the ideals he promised, such as transparency, debate, and a workable solution. This isn't the first time Obama has played three card monte with the American people, what is different now is that the Administration is trying to eliminate the only watchdog keeping an eye on our card.
President Barack Obama’s demonization of Fox News is comparable to that of the Nixon administration’s media enemies list, according to former Bush adviser Karl Rove.
Rove, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said Obama is engaging in his own version of former President Richard Nixon’s enemies list by shunning Fox News’ questions that officials in his administration don’t like.
"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said in response to a White House criticism of the network. "It's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."
Rove, a Fox News contributor and former political adviser to President George W. Bush, said the White House was engaging in “Chicago-style” bare-knuckle politics by attacking Fox News as “not really a news organization.”
"This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people,” Rove said. “And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."
Also appearing on Fox News Sunday to discuss the White House's de facto boycott of the news network was former Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who claimed people are annoyed that Fox was the only broadcast station that did not broadcast Obama’s healthcare speech to Congress last month.
“I think that was very problematic,” McAuliffe said. “I thought that was a very crazy decision, whoever made that decision. It’s a very important issue. If you look at...Fox News, they’re the talking points of the Republican National Committee. [Obama’s] got to deal first with those folks who are going to give him a fair hearing on health care.”
Rove responded by pointing out it was the Fox broadcast network, not the news network, that failed to carry Obama’s address to Congress.
“There are lots of objectionable things said on MSNBC, NBC, cable channels, and CNN for every president, [both] for [them] or against [them],” Rove said. “And that ought not be the standard by which a White House determines whether or not it’s going to demonize a news channel as an enemy.”
Rove said the White House attacks on Fox News are over the top. Just last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News "often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party, and it’s not ideological.
“Obviously there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist, and everybody understands that,” Dunn told CNN. “What I think is fair to say about Fox is that it really is more of a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air, take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is."
“We heard that before from Richard Nixon,” Rove said. “We have this White House prone to that kind of attitude, and it’s not helpful. It’s demeaning to the president. The president of the United States should not be picking out enemies in the media like that and personalizing it, and allowing his people to personalize it as well.”
Why is it that Obama is chosing to copy the worst policies of our presidents instead of the best?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak (see trends).
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
When it comes to making appearances at political fundraisers, President Obama apparently can't say no -- especially when compared to his two predecessors.
Just nine months into his presidency, Obama has appeared at 23 Democratic fundraisers, including the two he attended Tuesday night, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who keeps a detailed log of presidential activities.
By comparison, George W. Bush attended six political fundraisers and Bill Clinton went to five during their first year in office.
"That's a clear disparity," said Pete Sepp, vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union.
But when it comes to raking in the cash for fellow party members, Bush appears to be the fundraiser-in-chief.
He raised $48 million in those six fundraisers, while Obama raised $21 million in his first 20.
Looks like business as usual for that one. Get into office, vote present, and hit the campaign trail. Actually, that might not be so bad - if he stays on the campaign trail and stops destroying the country.
October 20, 2009 BY STEVE HUNTLEY Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration. You say that's hardly news? But it's been the message sounded over and over by the White House. Top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on one of the Sunday news shows, "He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression." In San Francisco, Obama talked of being "busy with our mop." White House heavy hitter Rahm Emanuel used the worst-economy-since-the-Depression line on a public TV news show.
You'd think it's October 2008, the final month in the Obama presidential candidacy, rather than October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. Yet the Obama White House is in full campaign mode -- maybe because it needs to mask the shortcomings of the Obama presidency.
Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion.
Yet just a few months ago, the Obama camp was singing a little different tune. It was under criticism for the $787 billion stimulus package it bulldozed through Congress on grounds that massive spending was needed to keep the unemployment rate from breaching 8 percent. When joblessness hit 9.5 percent in June, Vice President Joe Biden said, "We misread how bad the economy was."
They inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, or the economy turned out to be worse than they thought. Which is it? It can't be both -- unless your brain is completely addled by the Obama charisma.
Obama is still popular, but polls show the public losing faith in his policies. Another indicator was a ''Saturday Night Live'' skit lampooning Obama for the major accomplishments of his administration -- "jack and squat." If the honeymoon is ending with the American voter, it isn't for obsequious elements of the mainstream media. CNN prostrated itself by fact-checking the ''SNL'' comedy skit.
But that's harmless compared to the virulent campaign against Obama critics carried out by the denizens of MSNBC. Its Obama acolytes seek to demonize opponents of Obama's policies by focusing on most marginal corners of right-wing politics like, for example, the "birthers" who deny Obama is a natural born citizen. The larger scheme is to imply Obama critics are racists.
That's the backdrop to the story of Rush Limbaugh getting booted from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. He was smeared on CNN and MSNBC with false accusations of making two racist comments. He is an abrasive critic of Obama, so he must be racist, or so goes the left-wing story line. I wouldn't defend everything Limbaugh has ever said, but lies were used to blacklist him from professional football for his political views.
Recently an MSNBC personality accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of lobbying for policies that amount to being "treasonous to this country." Remember how liberals roared in outrage at any hint of their patriotism being questioned for criticizing the Iraq War? Well, it's the left that doesn't shy from attacking the patriotism of those it dislikes. Recall the repulsive Moveon.org "General Betray-us" ad against Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. Recent opposition to Chicago's Olympic bid was cast as a sign of a lack of patriotism among Obama critics.
The MSNBC blast against the chamber appears to dovetail with what the Politico newspaper reports is a White House and Democratic effort "to marginalize" the business organization. That echoes the administration assault on the Fox News Channel: It says Fox isn't a news organization.
The White House trying to dictate who's a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?
For the first time since Obama took office, fewer than half of Americans agree with the president on issues important to them, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday. A majority, 51 percent, disagree -- a jump of 10 percentage points since April.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet measured for this President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.
Last night in Boston, President Obama faced a half-empty hotel ballroom at a fundraiser for his pal, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who is unpopular and facing a difficult re-election campaign. Instead of confidence, he actually expressed doubt:
"There really should be no doubt that this guy gets a second term. But let's be honest. This is going to be a tough race ... "
Jules Crittenden has a hilarious blog post on the dismal portents for Obama and Patrick, titled "Maybe we can't," delving into the event and the press reaction. A sample:
Boston Globe helpfully plays down and buries five long graphs down but can't quite ignore Obama's low draw:
Sweeping into town for the fund-raiser and to deliver a speech on clean energy at MIT, Obama said Patrick deserves credit for implementing near-universal health care, investing in education, and making the alternative energy and biotech industries a priority. If voters fail to recognize this hard work in next year's state election, the president said, it will not bode well for the United States.
I'm sorry. It's about lowering expectations and claiming dire consequences for the very nation itself if the agenda doesn't get pushed. Maybe what he means is, 2010 losses won't bode well for US ... as in "we" ... in 2012. Because, he suggests, it will effectively render him a lame duck.
Otherwise, Obama said, other political leaders will say "then maybe I shouldn't, as a member of Congress or as a senator, take some chances and take some tough stands in pursuit of that same vision.''
Damn, for an early first-term mandate holder, he's not sounding very confident. But facing addressing all those empty chairs in blue Mass must have been disheartening.
