Limbaugh: Obama Pleads for 4 More

By David Limbaugh December 2, 2011 7:30 am

Instead of trying to govern, a matter about which I suppose we should be grateful, President Obama is once again galloping from fundraiser to fundraiser, straining to make the implausible case that the country needs his second term.

In New York for three events — in which he raked in $2 million from the very type of fat cats he daily condemns — he pleaded with voters (Reuters’ terminology, not mine) to be patient with him and to give him more time to fulfill his 2008 “hope and change” campaign promise.

He told supporters: “After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought. It has been three wrenching years for this country.” I’ll say.

Well, I, for one, fault him not for failing to honor that promise, but for keeping it. We’ve had change, all right, and precisely the kind he had in mind. One can only imagine how much more change he would have effected if he’d had his way — if democracy, as he has complained, weren’t so “slow” and so “messy.” Worse still, let’s imagine how much more change he’d attempt if, God forbid, he were to purloin a second term.

His words to the friendly audiences confirm what attentive observers already understand about his remaining ambitions. He said: “Every single thing that we care about is at stake in this next election. It’s going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making.”

It would be one thing if Obama had been referring to the entitlement structure that the liberal establishment has imposed on Americans over the past half-century or more. But if entitlements were his concern, he wouldn’t be single-handedly obstructing their structural reform. No, he’s talking about the sluggish state of the economy, which absolutely wouldn’t take even two years — much less a decade — to turn around if he would remove his socialist boot from its gasping throat.

But we should note that Obama cleverly gets double mileage out of conveniently shifting the goal posts. Back in his messianic era, he wasn’t fecklessly cautioning that it would take a generation to bring about real change or to turn the economy around. He said that with his “stimulus” bill, unemployment would top out at 8 percent and that if he didn’t turn things around within his first term, the voters wouldn’t give him another chance.

But by rewriting history to erase those statements, he hopes to get a pass on his failure to produce in the time period he proposed, and he shiftily bolsters his case that his policies haven’t failed at all, that they only need more time to work, which they will unless reversed by hyper-partisan Republicans.

This may be doubly good for Obama, but it’s doubly bad for America. For if such sophistry abets his re-election, we will have lost any real chance to save the nation from financial bankruptcy, and he will have a mandate to make matters even worse — on a wide range of fronts.

What would Obama do in a second term? He told his fawning benefactors that he considers his achievements to be overhauling health care, ending the war in Iraq and fighting al-Qaida but that he needs another term to fully address the economy, the environment and other issues.

So he considers imposing cost-prohibitive, freedom-suppressing and quality-destroying nationalized health care against the people’s will his major achievement? His awkward withdrawal from Iraq and increasingly deteriorating relations there a close second? And “fighting al-Qaida” with most of the tools, save enhanced interrogation techniques, he slandered President George W. Bush for using?

But now he wants more time to “address the economy” and “the environment” — as if his approaches to those aren’t mutually exclusive and as if he has earned any good will or credibility on either.

As for the economy, the only thing Obama knows are the failed practices of spending yet more borrowed money, establishing incestuous government-business partnerships and raising taxes, all of which would accelerate our appointment with financial Armageddon. He insists on more Solyndras, just as the world is beginning to wise up to the horrors attendant to worshipping false green gods. (Europe is starting to bail on Kyoto.) He will not allow the private sector and the producers likeliest to resurrect it the freedom to breathe. If the economy were to rebound on his watch — first or second term — it would be despite his agenda.

Amazingly, Obama told his contributors that he tries not to pat himself “too much on the back” but that his “administration has done more for the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”

This is outright surreal, and so would be his second term.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

Wow… There really IS someone worse than Jimmy Carter

 

When asked to choose the worst president in the history of America, a familiar name comes to mind. Even Democrats will remember the years of gas lines, energy shortages, inflation, unemployment, and hostages. I’m talking about the 39th president of the United States: Jimmy Carter. But now, a new report by Gallup reveals that Barack Obama has journeyed into Carter-like territory. In the history of their polling, no one has had a lower approval rating at this point in a presidential term than Obama.

As noted in the U.S. News blog Washington Whispers, “President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.” Here’s how Obama compares with other presidents:

— Obama: 43 percent.

— Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

— Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

— Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

— Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

— Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

— George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

— Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

— George W. Bush: 55 percent.

So how do things stand for our current president? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, confidence in short-term economic growth remains at a record low.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of U.S. adults shows that just 27% believe the economy will be stronger in one year, showing no change from September and the lowest finding in regular tracking since early 2009. Prior to September, the number of adults expecting a stronger economy in a year’s time ranged from 31% to 45%.

Forty-eight percent (48%) expect the U.S. economy to be weaker a year from now, down slightly from September’s high of 52%. This finding remained in the 30s throughout 2009 and rose to the low 40s for much of 2010. Just 16% expect the economy to be about the same in a year’s time, while 10% more aren’t sure.

Remember the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!”? Well… it IS the economy. And Obama has failed at it. In another Rasmussen Reports poll, 84% of likely voters “regard economic issues as Very Important.”

The number of voters who feel this way about the economy has remained fairly consistent since January 2008. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighty percent (80%) say it’s not a good time to sell a home in their area. That’s a new high. This comes on top of data showing that only 16% of homeowners believe the value of their home will go up this year. Additionally, barely more than half believe their home is worth more than their mortgage.

As another sign of how people view the job Obama is doing, a generic Republican presidential candidate leads Obama in the race for the White House — 48% to 42%.

There is a lot of time between now and Election Day, but the economy is going no where fast. The key will be if voters actually think about what’s going on or simply react to some “hope and change” sound bite. Obama certainly does not deserve a second term. But will he get it?


Obama Has Halved Spending on Border Fencing, Infrastructure, Technology–Leaving 1,300 Miles of Mexico Border Unfenced

By Edwin Mora

November 28, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration has slashed spending on border fencing, infrastructure and technology, cutting it by more than half since it peaked under President George W. Bush in fiscal 2008, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In 2008, according to GAO, the federal government spent more than $1.3 billion on border security fencing, infrastructure and technology. In 2011, it spend $573 million.Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection has said that as of June it had fenced only 649 miles of the nearly 1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border–leaving more than 1,300 miles of that border unfenced.

The November 2011 GAO report refers to this category of federal spending by the acronym BSFIT.

“Over $4.7 billion has been appropriated for BSFIT activities from fiscal years 2007 through 2011,” it says.

The report breaks the figure down for the five consecutive fiscal years (the 12-month period from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 of the following year) – $1.188 billion for FY2007, $1.303 billion for FY2008, $845 million for FY2009, $800 million for FY2010 and $573 million for FY2011.

Over that period, the annual appropriations for border security therefore peaked in FY2008 under President Bush and declined to its lowest level in FY2011 under President Obama.  Read More >>>

We’re No Longer Alone: Obama’s Tax Lies Refuted Throughout Media

Posted by Conservative Byte

Do you remember (it wasn’t that long ago) when Barack Obama told the “rich fat cats” on Wall Street…? This is back during the days of the AIG and other Wall Street bonus scandal, and you had all of Obama’s ACORN-type people showing up on the front yards of AIG homes to protest their bonuses. Remember Obama telling the AIG people and all the other, quote, unquote, “rich fat cats” on Wall Street that he was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks? Well, guess what? Now it is only Obama’s skin color that is standing between him and the pitchforks of the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are openly admitting: If this were a white president who had done this economically to their constituents, they would be marching on the White House.
The only reason they’re not is because of the color of his skin. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have said this. Now, the columnist in Chicago, the Chicago Tribune, is a guy named Steve Chapman, Steven Chapman, and the last column that he wrote about Obama was back in August. Back in August he said that Obama had accomplished undeniably historic, even great things. He killed Osama, he’s getting us out of Iraq, he passed Obamacare. The only problem was the economy made him look bad. He said the economy even made Ronald Reagan look bad. Suddenly Chapman’s changed his tune. He thinks Obama has to go, in just a month’s time. Steven Chapman has changed his tune. Obama has to go for the good of the party, for the good of liberalism. That is what is at stake.  Read more >>>>

This Teacher is a Genius

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D!?  No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)

Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

Even Obama’s Cheerleaders Are Falling Away

President Obama’s cheerleaders are starting to peel away along with his approval ratings, and it’s a fascinating sight to behold. They offer different reasons, but they all boil down to one obvious thing — Obama is first and foremost about Obama — and one less obvious: He has been a failed president.

White House threatens veto over detainee policy

By Donna Cassata November 18, 2011 7:25 am

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is threatening to veto a massive defense bill over its requirement that terrorist suspects be held in military custody, setting up a showdown with Congress over the Obama administration’s prosecution of the war on terror.

Shortly after the Senate started work Thursday on the long-awaited bill, the administration delivered a harsh assessment of provisions concerning U.S. handling of captured terror suspects, language that has divided senior Senate Democrats and drawn criticism from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The White House directed its toughest comments at the military custody requirement.

“This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial restriction of the president’s authority to defend the nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

The provision would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. It gives the president authority to waive the requirement based on national security. The administration argues that military custody, rather than civilian, would hamper the FBI and other law enforcement agencies seeking intelligence from terror suspects.

Ratcheting up its criticism, the White House said in its statement that applying such a requirement to those within the United States would challenge the “fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

The White House also argued that in the 10 years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the administrations of Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama have broken down walls between intelligence, law enforcement and the military and that Congress should not rebuild those walls and “unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.”

Congress and the administration have been at odds since Obama took office over how to handle captured terror suspects. The administration insists that lawmakers are trying to limit the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents after they’ve succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, delivering two body blows to al-Qaida.

Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, holding captured terror suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and trying them by military commissions. In a not-in-my-backyard argument, lawmakers have resisted transferring suspects to the United States.

The sweeping defense bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. Reflecting a period of austerity and deficit-driven cuts in military spending, the bill is $27 billion less than what Obama requested for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and $43 billion less than what Congress provided to the Pentagon this year.

In its statement, the administration said it supports the broader bill but cannot accept any legislation that “challenges or constrains the president’s authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation” and would force the president’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the panel, had negotiated for weeks with senior administration officials on acceptable language but failed to work out their differences. On Tuesday, Levin and McCain pressed ahead with a new version of the bill, revising the detainee policy. The committee approved the measure on a 26-0 vote.

Among the changes to the military custody requirement is an exclusion for U.S. citizens or legal aliens and clarification that the mandatory step need not interrupt ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering and interrogations.

But the unanimous tally in the committee belied strong opposition in the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, object to the provisions, as does Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., a member of the Armed Services panel.

Targeting the provisions, Udall offered an amendment to strike the detainee provisions from the bill and instead permit the Intelligence, Judiciary and Armed Services committees to hold hearings with Pentagon and administration officials on the issue.

“These are people whose opinions should be carefully considered before we put these proposals into our legal framework,” Udall said, citing the committee leaders as well as Panetta.

Feinstein criticized the predilection of many in Congress to rely solely on the military.

Several Republicans defended the bill’s provisions, with McCain, Obama’s 2008 White House rival, countering that if the president had had a coherent policy, the committee’s actions wouldn’t have been necessary.

“The president’s policy has been a total and abysmal failure,” McCain said although he indicated that lawmakers would continue discussions with the administration over the provisions.

Breaking with several of his fellow Democrats, Levin insisted that his committee has “gone a long way” to address the administration’s concerns.

“There have been misstatements, misimpressions, misinterpretations of the provisions of our bill,” Levin said.

Panetta was on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet privately with several senators about some elements of the bill. The Pentagon chief met with Leahy and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., about the popular congressional effort to make the chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military’s top brass has argued against such a step, saying the status quo is fine.

Leahy later offered an amendment to expand the Joint Chiefs.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., offered an amendment to expand sanctions on Iran to include foreign financial institutions that conduct transactions through the Central Bank of Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently said Iran was suspected of clandestine work that is “specific to nuclear weapons.”

The Senate is not expected to complete work on the defense bill until early December.

SEIU to focus on minority voters for Obama

By Sam Hananel November 17, 2011 7:20 am

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Service Employees International Union endorsed President Barack Obama’s re-election bid on Wednesday, saying it would deploy its formidable political machine earlier and on a wider scale than it did four years ago.

SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said the union plans to reach out to all 2.1 million members by Labor Day and focus on getting more Hispanic and black voters to the polls.

“We’re trying to do it on a scale that we’ve never done before,” she said.

The politically powerful union is the latest labor organization to jump in with an early endorsement of the president, following the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the National Education Association. It could signal even broader campaign spending by labor groups, which poured about $400 million to help elect Obama in 2008.

The SEIU is starting early, in part, because of reports that some Obama supporters are less enthusiastic than they were four years ago, Henry said. But while some union leaders have expressed disappointment with Obama’s commitment to create jobs and willingness to back the union agenda, the SEIU has remained a steadfast supporter.

One of Obama’s earliest backers in 2008, the SEIU spent about $60 million to help him win the presidential race. That led the union to become an influential voice in forming administration policy, particularly on Obama’s health care overhaul plan. Former SEIU president Andy Stern has been one of the most frequent White House guests and is a member of Obama’s debt commission.

Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, welcomed the endorsement, saying the SEIU and Obama “share many common goals,” including the right to collective bargaining, better access to affordable health care and keeping workplaces safe.

 

$15T Federal Debt Equals $160,545 for Each Full-Time Private-Sector American Worker

By Terence P. Jeffrey  November 16, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Treasury Department reported on Wednesday that as of the close of business on Tuesday the federal government’s debt had exceeded $15 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history–hitting precisely $15,033,607,255,920.32.

The Bureau of Labor Statisticsestimated that there were 93,641,000 full-time private sector workers in the United States in 2010 (and 18,073,000 full-time workers in federal, state and local government). That means the $15.0336 trillion federal debt equals approximately 160,545 per full-time private sector worker.

Given that the Census Bureau estimates there were approximately 76,089,045 families in the United States in 2010, the federal debt equals approximately $197,579 for each American family

Obama administration to announce effort to expand health-care workforce

By , Updated: Sunday, November 13, 11:01 PM

The Obama administration will announce Monday as much as $1 billion in funding to hire, train and deploy health-care workers, part of the White House’s broader “We Can’t Wait” agenda to bolster the economy after President Obama’s jobs bill stalled in Congress.Grants can go to doctors, community groups, local government and other organizations that work with patients in federal health-care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The funds are for experimenting with different ways to expand the health-care workforce while reducing the cost of delivering care. There will be an emphasis on speed, with new programs expected to be running within six months of funding.

“This will open the inbox for many innovators and organizations that have an idea to bring to the table,” Don Berwick, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in an interview. “We’re seeking innovators, organizations and leaders that have an idea to bring into further testing.”

Health-care employment is growing steadily, with more than 300,000 jobs added in the past year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has been one bright spot in the economy as unemployment has hovered around 9 percent. The bureau projects total employment in health care to grow by 3.2 million jobs by 2018, more than in any other sector.

At the same time, the country faces a doctor shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects that the United States will have 63,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2015. That shortage will grow to 130,600 doctors by 2025.

The need for a larger health-care workforce will probably become particularly acute in 2014, when the health-care overhaul is expected to expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans. By 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects, 32 million more Americans will have gained health insurance coverage.

That has left federal agencies looking to alternative ways to deliver care, ones that may rely more on community-based care and less on trips to the doctor’s office. Under this new program, organizations may be able to explore how community workers, volunteers, pharmacy techs or clinic managers could play a larger role in the health-care workforce.

“We have a wealth of good ideas in health care, but the big challenge is spread,” Berwick said. “This will be seed money to get innovation to go further. This is venture capital to grow good ideas to scale.”

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, created as part of the Affordable Care Act, will administer and oversee the program, called the Health Care Innovation Challenge.

“In many ways, the health-care system in the future will be different from the health-care system today,” said Richard Gilfillan, acting director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. “We’re saying, let’s find the best people to do these jobs and broaden the workforce.”

 
Page 2 of 3«123»

Faith In The Word

118 Brushy Lane
Arley, Alabama 35541
205-471-1201
info@faithintheword.com




plugin by DynamicWP
#