Monday, January 25, 2010

Obama Quote, Brown Victory, Supreme Decision

Don’t be afraid to see what you see.”
Ronald Reagan
"Don't make any sudden moves. This was usually an effective tactic, because (white) people were satisfied as long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
Do these words seem a little racist to you? Can you guess whose said themt? It comes from Barack Hussein Obama, in his book Dreams From My Father.


Quip of the day, from columnist Charles Krauthammer on Friday's (January 22) Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC. Baier wondered: “Conservatives, pretty good week?” Krauthammer affirmed: You know, this is an amazing week. Massachusetts goes Republican, health care dies and the Supreme Court unshackles the First Amendment. It's the best week I've had since spring break in medical school -- and I don't even remember it [laughter from other panelists].

"And there was another item which you mentioned: Air America, the liberal talk show network went out of business -- which is a redundancy because nobody was listening anyway".
As Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics writes: Obama was the smooth Constitutional Law professor from an elite university who projected a sense of knowledge, competence, and analytic pragmatism married to the lofty, eloquent rhetoric of hope. Put differently, candidate Obama was above running a populist campaign - which is why he struggled so mightily against Hillary Clinton with blue collar folks who cling to their God and guns.
Charles Krauthammer: Obama said: "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue.


From Politico: Congressional Democrats — stunned out of silence by Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts — say they’re done swallowing their anger with President Barack Obama and ready to go public with their gripes.

If the sentiment isn’t quite heads-must-roll, it’s getting there.

Hill Democrats are demanding that Obama’s brain trust — especially senior adviser David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — shelve their grand legislative ambitions to focus on the economic issues that will determine the fates of shaky Democratic majorities in both houses.

“I haven’t seen Rahm Emanuel except on television. We used to see him a lot; I’d like him to come out from behind his desk and meet with the common folk,” added Pascrell. The following recent quote of Rahm Emanuel ought to give them second thoughts on that idea......

Rahm Emanuel commented on the Supreme Court decision on the First Amendment of our Constitution: he thinks it's highly overrated!!!! What a great appointment by our President, don't you think?


What the following quote by Barack Obama tells me is that this decision by the Supreme Court must really give the Republicans an advantage in the next election. I've always been disgusted by McCain Feingold and blamed McCain for being part of it.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less". Later in the week there is this: "But the Supreme Court’s ruling, which lifted some limits on corporate and union campaign spending, represents perhaps the gravest threat of all to Americans since it could mean the end of “common sense legislation” regarding healthcare or the environment, Obama said".

Commentary Magazine has these comments: This is as noxious a statement concerning the Supreme Court that has, in my memory, ever been issued by the White House. Let’s count the ways. First, the president — who tells us he is a serious constitutional scholar – offers not a single word of substantive criticism about the Court’s analysis. He treats the Court — as most liberals do, frankly — as a policymaking body. In this case, he doesn’t like the outcome and blasts away at the result, transparently using the Court to regain his populist footing with the public.

Second, what in the world is a bipartisan response to a First Amendment ruling? He’s going to amend the Constitution? He’s going to pack the Court? The lack of acknowledgment that this is a principle of constitutional law, one at the foundation of our democracy, is jaw-dropping. You’ll notice what is not in the president’s statement — “First Amendment’ or “Constitution.” There isn’t a legislative “fix” to the First Amendment.


From the Washington Post: Justice Stevens, in commenting on his dissent to the decision wrote of his conservative colleagues' "agenda" and said they had transformed a simple case about whether a conservative group's movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton violated McCain-Feingold into a constitutional quandary. "Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.


The AP is reporting: U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey. The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.


1 comment:

  1. This Administration ran on a platform to go green, but they seem to have a policy of only worrying about water restoration, not prevention of problems such as ballast water. Other than the commander and chiefs purposed two decade plan, drawn up by the Coast Guard that mirrors an international organization of foreign sea captains, foreign countries, and foreign companies who have a terrible track record, we have nothing. To address the polluted water trail and carbon footprint of international shipping moving fossil fuels and consumer goods, the president would need to be bi-partisan. Addressing ballast water may help prevent eggs and baby Asian carp from spreading into the Great Lakes through the ballast tanks of barges. The president may not have had to address the problem of closing a canal. This would cause economic problems in his home state, which are minimal compared to the economic and permanent damage he is willing to risk for the rest of the country. Because network media dose not make an issue of this problem and will continue to pretend, by silence, regardless of what happens, that our president is not responsible, it is quite easy for this president to continue to only talk about preventing the dirty carbon emission in manufacturing as that can they can be associated with the partisan issue of oil. The change that we needed in 2008 to fix this problem, was started and passed (395-7) by the house of representatives and has since been ignored by the Senate and this administration, Americans that care about our water should make sure that this administrations inaction on preventing the continued destruction of our water as the economy begins to recover and grow through the continued and growing importation of foreign goods is forever remembered as a missed opportunity to protect our country because of short term economics. If terrorist use this venue to attack us we should never allow it to be said "who knew" as we did in 2001. Dose anyone think that the reason network TV dose not address these problems could be associated with the sponsors? cruise ships, Walmart, oil companies, Etc.?