Tag Archives: Barack Obama
Obama isn’t happy with the way that the media reports on his failing economic and social policies.
At a discussion at Georgetown University on Tuesday, the President scolded the media for showing the unemployed demanding phones and other entitlements:
“I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone”
The media finds people to interview in actual America, not the one the President wants to pretend exists. The entitled want their Obama phones, EBT card money and everything else the left has been telling them that they should expect.
The President continued his rant against accurate reporting by calling for an outright change to how the media reports:
“We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues..”
How, exactly, does Obama plan to change how the media reports on these issues? Net neutrality gave the government more control over the internet and we are already dealing with the least transparent administration in history. Anything more obtrusive by the government and we’re looking at censorship – that pesky first amendment should at least slow him down.
If his idea of changing how the media reports means only telling the stories he finds palatable or in a manner that he approves, well .. that sounds a lot like N. Korea’s way of changing the body politic.
What is the TPP trying to accomplish?
The TPP has been negotiated in near-secrecy for a decade so its exact aims are difficult to discern. Some key objectives have become public after materials were made public by infamous hacker organization WikiLeaks.
The agreement, in its current form, seems to protect the patents of large multi-nationals, creates an international tribunal that can order reparations on behalf of corporations and more.
Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation’s regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay’s strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the company’s profits.
That tribunal we spoke of earlier can rule on corporation’s claims to be losing profits due to undue regulation. The nation’s may have little-to-no recourse. International law will over-rule.
Some oppose the international tribunal mentioned earlier because it be used by any participating nation’s companies to subvert regulations that Americans support. We don’t like horsemeat in our bologna or fox meat in our donkey meat (ok, that’s more a China thing, but you get the drift – and it could be our problem soon…) This pact could allow foreign companies to import unsafe or unsavory items into America – and U.S. consumers would never be the wiser. Heck, the foreign nations could petition the tribunal that U.S. regulations against fox, donkey, horse or … whatever meat are hurting their profits. Awesome! Who wouldn’t want some creamed raccoon in a jar for their babies?
It could also allow U.S.-based multi-nationals to get around regulations by claiming harm in the international tribunal – thereby over-stepping regulations on just about everything.
Who is involved in the TPP?
As of today, the agreement is being formed by twelve nations: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.
What is the History of the TPP?
In 2002, New Zealand, Chili and Singapore began trade talks as the P3 (Pacific 3) at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico. Brunei joined the negotiations in 2005 making it the P4.
Not until 2008 did the United States join discussions. President George W. Bush engaged the partnership to negotiate trade liberalisation on financial services. The first U.S. involvement in the negotiations was set to be at meetings in 2009.
Obama entered office in 2009 and announced that he was seeking a broader agreement. The 2009 conference was delayed until 2010.
At the 2010 conference, President Obama advanced a proposal to limit negotiations to completing by November 2011 – negotiations are still ongoing in 2015.
Why are the contents of the TPP so secret?
The question to worry all Americans – why are the specifics of the trade agreement being kept secret and why is Congress about to allow the President to negotiate a treaty without them?
There isn’t a benevolent reason anyone has come up with.
Sure, some defend the trade pact as a winner for unions, jobs, American exports, and making sure starving albino monkeys get their porridge.. or something. But that is the justification for pushing the agreement, not why it should be done in secret.
When governments do things in secret, it is either to conceal their intent from their enemies or to conceal the same thing from their own people. This isn’t about hiding anything from ISIS, Russia, North Korea or Iran – that leaves a taste in the mouth.. doesn’t it?
The administration, other nations and even analysts have offered no valid reason to keep the TPP secret, yet Congress (Democrat and Republican alike) are working to give the President fast track authority to approve the treaty – what could go wrong?
What is the Fast Track Authority Congress Wants to Give the President?
Fast track authority (aka Trade Promotion Authority) gives the President of the United States unilateral authority in negotiating a trade agreement.
Normally, Congress has amendment and filibuster capability that can be used to shape a trade agreement. With fast-track, they get only a “yes” or “no” vote – no adding or blocking amendments.. just vote one way or the other on the deal the President negotiates.
Born in 1974 in the Trade Act of 1974, it was advanced by a President consumed with power. In the end, the provisions it enacted did little to protect Americans, their jobs or their health.
Using his weekly public address, Obama informs the people that climate change “can no longer be ignore.”
President Obama addresses Congress and the nation setting his priorities and agenda for the coming year.
Speaking to activists at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, Sen. Cruz takes aim at the GOP establishment and President Obama.
The president’s overreach is an affront to the rule of law and the Constitution itself.
While exiting the presidential helicopter, Marine One, Obama thought that properly saluting the marines guarding his exit was just a bit to troublesome.
Of course, the story is more complicated that the opening sentence. The President was forced to hold absolutely nothing in his left hand while he saluted the marines with his coffee-encumbered right.
The U.S. Navy Manual (the Marine Corps is part of the Navy) has a section entitled “Procedures for Saluting.” In it, there are listed a few reasons one may not properly salute:
e. In some situations, the salute is not appropriate. In general, do not salute when:
(1) Engaged in routine work when a salute would interfere.
(2) Indoors, except when under arms.
(3) Carrying articles with both hands or being otherwise so occupied as to make saluting impractical.
(4) The rendition of the salute is obviously inappropriate, such as in places of public assemblage such as
theaters or churches, and in public conveyances.
I am not sure if perhaps the routine work of disembarking his private, high-cost, tax-payer provided helicopter counts as (1) or if perhaps Mr. President is packing heat under that jacket so that (3) applies.
(3) Would only apply if “occupied” could be replaced with “thinking about golfing.”
Where an exception could be granted would be (4) as he is exiting a method of public.. oops, never mind. This conveyance is his and his only.
The key being that if an excusable consideration had occurred Obama could have just not saluted at all. Instead, he chose to give a half-hearted, disrespectful and nearly callous version of the military courtesy.
While some excuses will be made that one or more exceptions might apply to Obama’s faux-pas (hasn’t the media excused the other bunches of them), this one should be left to dangle around his scrawny neck.
Sure, he could claim to be too busy, have too much in his hands, be otherwise engaged in other work or what have you. Our fighting men and women deserve the simple common courtesy of their commander letting them know that they are more than an afterthought – that they are worth his attention.
Can you just imaging the outrage if a marine, soldier, airmen or sailor saluted President Obama with a cup of coffee in their hands – or not at all.
The first wave of United States attacks against ISIS and The Khorasan Group in Syria began early Tuesday morning.
The airstrikes hit 14 ISIS and Khorasan targets in Syria including command and control centers, supply caches and training facilities.
Aircraft from five Arab nations reportedly assisted with the strikes, but no European allies were involved.
The air assault began with cruise missiles, bombers, predator/reaper UAVs and fighter aircraft targeting the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria early on Tuesday.
U.S. officials said planes from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar were also involved in the mission.
U.S. F-18s launched from the aircraft carrier U.S.S George H.W. Bush in the Persian gulf while the destroyer U.S.S. Arleigh Burke launched Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
All U.S. service personnel have been reported safe after this morning’s sorties.
Brother Rachid, the son of a Moroccan imam, has posted a video called “A Message to President Obama From a Former Muslim” in which he attempts to give the President a crash course in Islamic studies. He begins by telling the president that he is wrong when he said that ISIL speaks for no religion. The former Muslim-turned-Christian further explained that terrorism begins in the schools and Mosques and must be cut off at the root.
“I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam. ISIL is a Muslim organization.”
I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet several former Muslims in my lifetime and they make excellent and powerful Christians. It is a sometimes dangerous conversion as Islam calls for the death of all Muslims who leave the religion. Islam calls for the conversion, subjugation, or elimination of all peoples who fall under its control. Leaving the religion to join another is simply not an option in Islam and frequently leads to the death or imprisonment of those who decide that the teachings of Muhammad are not for them.
Politicians in particular insist that this is not a war of religion or clash of civilizations. We see an endless spewing of “religion of peace” quotes, diatribes on “a nation of immigrants,” and complaints about ethnic profiling at airports. I wish that someone would tell that to the enemy, for that is exactly the war that they are waging.
Is it really helpful to attempt to portray something as something it as not? Is it helpful to attempt to fool the public into believing something that is false or misleading? Are we to believe that there is in fact no direct link between the Islamic religion and terrorist atrocities?
The adherents of militant Islam are not some small, isolated group of malcontents as they are so often portrayed. Millions of Muslims are adherents to the ideology and religious fervor that wages war on the West. The cries of jihad echo in warfare across the globe. It is the ideology of the Arab slavers waging war on Christians in Sudan. It is the call from hundreds of minarets in Saudi Arabia and the gospel of the mullahs of Iran. It is the creed of the border tribes of Pakistan and is the heart and soul of the Taliban. It flourishes in the jungles of the Philippines and the slums of Indonesia. It sallies forth from the green valleys of Lebanon and preaches its hate in the mosques of Europe. And it beheads Americans on the sands of Syria.
Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al-Tawhid, Abu Sayyaf, the Taliban, Al-Ansar Islam, Al-Sadr’s militia, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Beyyiat el-Imam, Jund al-Shams, ISIL, or the dozens of other militant terrorist groups infesting the globe their methodology, goals, tactics, cruelty, tenacity, and victims are often eerily the same. It is a strange world of martyrdom, jihad, cries of Allahu Akbar! and fantasies of a heavenly reward of seventy-two virgins. They may differ by sect, creed, or nationality but each wages war on the innocent, the Christian and the Jew, the concepts of Liberty and Justice, and Western Civilization itself.
The real question is whether the West has lost its soul or is able to overcome the deplorable liberal cancer that lobotomizes otherwise intelligent people and creates an endless line of apologists, capitulators, and seditionists. If Western Civilization can wake up from its stupefying stupor of suicidal tendencies and deal with the destruction of its culture, identity, and vision then it has a fighting chance against those who believe only in conversion, subjugation, or death at the hand of the armies of Allah.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
– Winston Churchill – The River War, volume II pp. 248–50 (1899)
Never forget that many of us saw, way back on Sept. 11, 2001, that the enemy of the Americans was the same enemy that was fighting Israel, and India, and Russia, and Indonesia and the Philippines, and infiltrating Europe, and advocating in America, and throwing acid in the face of unveiled women across the world, and preaching fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, and blowing up statues in Afghanistan, and manning the madrasses in Pakistan, and pushing propaganda on al-Jazeera, and blowing up schoolchildren in Tel-Aviv, and beheading young men… – blogger D.F.V.