Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Why Monica Lewinsky is relevant: Liberals have redefined sexual harassment

bill and monica

Flopping Aces

The first sentence in this Mitt Romney article is the very definition of irony:

Failed 2012 U.S. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said on Sunday he expects Hillary Clinton to win or lose the White House on her record, not that of her husband, former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his sexual indiscretions.

“Failed Presidential nominee.” Indeed. Mitt Romney is a really nice guy and that’s why he lost.

John McCain declared Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “off limits.”

McCain is also known as a “Failed U.S. Republican presidential nominee.”

Mitt says Monica is off limits. McCain said Wright was off limits. Both lost.

Anyone notice a pattern here? Why anyone would want to take Presidential campaign advice from these two is beyond me. What they know is how to lose.

In 2014 male CEO’s can rejoice. Liberals, taking a clue from Hillary Clinton, have redefined the meaning of sexual harassment. As the candidacy of Hillary Clinton slowly begins to materialize the left is desperate to fend off the specter of Bill’s sexual escapades so they can utilize the one weapon they have in the Hillary quiver, i.e. the “War on Women.” But for now, 20 year old female interns are free game.

The 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns were all about exploiting race. The country elected a novelty President with zero legislative footprint and no accomplishments other than leaving behind the wreckage known as Parc Grove but he did claim to want to “fundamentally” change the country. Voters were dunned into voting for Obama simply to prove they weren’t guilty of racism and any opposition to Obama was always motivated by racism.

This time democrats might offer up another novelty Presidential candidate- a woman- and the campaign will be about and only about the war on women. Any and all criticisms of Hillary will be because “You hate women.”

Continue reading

‘Impeach the President’

Image

Red State

You guys in the press who are reading this right now can be such shameless whores.  I generally try to hold to the standard these days that if I wouldn’t be outraged by George Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton and Darth Cheney doing something, I shouldn’t be outraged by President Obama.  And if I’d be outraged by Bush, I should be outraged by Obama.

But you journalists have such erections for everything Barack Obama does, you can’t even summon outrage to report fairly on the latest b.s. from the administration over Obamacare.  Is it any wonder so many people have stopped trusting you? 

Continue reading

Why Bother?

Image

Red State

I did not watch the Golden Globes this year.  I did not watch the Grammys.  I am not sure if I will watch the State of the Union address.

Why bother?

A thin skinned amateur who has been in office six years and still can’t grasp how to do his job will stand before an even more thin skinned Parliament of Whores and tell them he does not need them, while knowing he really does need them, while none of them truly want to be with each other, and all have lawyers ready to go bow before the black robed masters who’ll sit stone faced at the front of room knowing they really rule the joint.

My only hope is that the Republicans grow a pair and start laughing uncontrollably when the President begins touting Obamacare, which you know he will do and which you know they will not.  Paging Steve Stockman — here’s your moment.

Continue reading

Obamacare grandfathering rules were written AFTER the law was passed.

obama as goebbels

Flopping Aces

Adrienne’s Corner:

Did Obama write the regulation to cancel your insurance after Obamacare was passed?…

Rand Paul says he did.

And the democrats (you know – the ones who claim they didn’t know anything about this) voted to keep the regulation that if your insurance changed in any way it would be cancelled.

Why are we just hearing about this now??

Continue reading

Obama’s Second, and Continuing, Big Lie

PJ Media

By now, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of insurance cancellation notices that have been sent, it is well known that President Obama’s repeated assurances that if you like your current insurance and doctor you can keep them were not true.

And thanks to the recent reporting of CNN (where were they and the other media three years ago, when we needed them?), more people will realize that shortly after the passage of Obamacare the Obama administration implemented rules specifically designed to ensure that millions of people — those who provided for themselves on the individual market, i.e., who did not receive coverage through their employer or union — would not be allowed to keep their current insurance. Thus not only were Obama’s assurances untrue; they were purposeful deceit in which a supine press was complicit.

Actually, not “were” but “are,” since Obama has not acknowledged their inaccuracy, although the White House does now admit that a paltry 5% of the population who were so gullible as to buy what they mistakenly thought was insurance from “bad apple” insurers may have to “shop around” in the wonderful new exchanges he has created.

In a Friday (Nov. 1) press conference, Jay Carney insisted that “only a fraction of the population, estimated to be five percent, might end up losing their existing health insurance,” and in a Boston appearance two days earlier the president was, as usual, even more expansive in praise of his own creation.

One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the underinsured. And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.

That was part of the promise we made.

Actually, as everyone who has heard the nearly endless loop of Obama’s “you can keep them” assurances and received or heard of all the cancellation letters must know by now, that was no part of the promise that Obama made.

What everyone does not know — because it has not been widely reported  — is that in attempting to respond to the “you can keep them” lie the White House has been repeating a second big lie  just as serious as the first: that “only a fraction of the population” (Carney), “fewer than 5 per cent” (Obama), are the only victims, that the  approximately 80% who get their insurance from their employer, union, or government program will in fact be able to keep their insurance.

No, they will not, and the administration and its Democratic supporters know they will not. Although recent attention has been focused on all the individual insurance holders losing coverage, the administration’s 2010 rules were written to undermine employer-provided insurance as well. John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog has looked at those rules and found that the intent was clear:

The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not….

The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time.

In September 2010, CNN has reported, Republicans in the Senate introduced legislation to reverse the new regulations. Hinderaker quotes Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi’s introductory comments pointing out that that the new regs made a lie of Obama’s “you can keep them” promise, for those on employer-provided as well as individual plans. “The regulation,” Sen. Enzi stated, “is crystal clear. Most businesses — the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent — will not be able to keep the coverage they have.”

CNN noted that “Senate Democrats” (including many who now act surprised about all the policy cancellations they failed to prevent) “voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters” now going out.

The only mentions I have seen of Obama’s second big lie in the press are in two excellent recent contributions to Forbes online. Charles Conover thoroughly analyzed the impact of the June 2010 regulations and estimates:

if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68%) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014. This includes:

  • 9.2 to 15.4 million in the non-group market

  • 16.6 million in the small group market

  • 102.7 million in the large group market

“In short,” Conover concludes, “the ‘vast majority’ are not keeping their health plans,” which the administration ensured (pardon the pun) by its June 2010 regulations. “Statements to the contrary are flatly untrue.”

A day later, and independent of Conover’s analysis, Avik Roy reached the same conclusion, noting that the administration’s regulations would and were intended to produce “massive disruption of the private insurance market.” Not just the for those with individual plans, he emphasized, “but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.”

Actually, the new regs did keep Obama’s promise to one special interest group of his supporters: unions. “Union plans,” Betsy McCaughey writes, “were ‘grandfathered’ with none of those fine print tricks and exceptions. (Sec. 1251(d)).”

The following is from the Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2010, p. S7690:

Mr. ENZI. According to the administration, in small businesses, 80 percent of the people — unless this is passed — will lose the insurance they have and like, and in all businesses 69 percent will. Those are not my numbers; those are the administration’s numbers.

Mr. McCAIN . But isn’t it also true that is the case for small business and people and entrepreneurs all over America except the unions? Isn’t that true? Isn’t this a carve-out again, part of this sleaze that went into putting this bill together, part of the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Louisiana purchase,” the buying of PhRMA…. Part of one of those sweetheart deals was the unions are exempt; is that correct?

Mr. ENZI. That is correct.

The recent attempt to claim, in effect, that Obama broke his promise only to “fewer than 5 percent of Americans,” as the president just claimed in Boston, is as big a lie as his repeated “if you like them you can keep them” assurances.

Unless, that is, your insurance is provided through a union.

It is becoming increasingly clear that when government controls health care, winners and losers are chosen by politicians for political reasons.

A presidency on the verge of a nervous breakdown: 5 key reasons why Barack Obama’s future looks increasingly bleak

The future looks bleak for President Barack Obama (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

The future looks bleak for President Barack Obama (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

The Telegraph

 

Forget the myth of an Obama recovery. The past week has been disastrous for the White House and America’s increasingly disillusioned Left. No wonder the angry and desperate Vice President Joe Biden is talking about “playing hell” if his party suffers defeat in November.

Here are five reasons why the Obama presidency’s outlook is getting significantly worse, not better:

Continue reading

Obama’s ‘New Executive Actions’ on Gun Control; Two New Measures

The Weekly Standard

The White House just announced two new executive measures for gun control. The announcement came to reporters via email. 

“FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence,” the subject of the announcement reads.

“Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013,” reads the White House’s announcement. 

Continue reading

Obama Islamist Outreach Overview

Family Security Matters

The Obama administration has an infamous history of questionable Islamist outreach, as noted here, here and here. These outreach efforts have been engaged by the  highest levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ), resulting in decisions  effecting potential prosecutions of Islamist leaders and closing ranks with other Islamist leaders in the name  of civil rights enforcement.

More recently, a U.S. Attorney in Tennessee suggested that anti-Muslim inflammatory Internet  postings might rise to the level of violating federal civil rights statutes.  This caused an uproar of concern that such biased outreach may cross  a line encroaching on First Amendment protected free speech.

Continue reading

Obama’s Father’s Day Freudian Slip

Freedom Outpost

If anyone was wondering how Obama views himself as president, this one  little statement issued as he reflected on Father’s Day would sum it up  nicely.  Obama stated “being a dad ‘the most important job many of us will ever  have’ and there was no substitute for being in a child’s life.  He went on to  give a summation of his life without a father, what he tries to accomplish for  his family and then sums up how he will recall his life.

“When I look back on my life, I won’t be thinking about any particular  legislation I passed or policy I promoted,” Obama said. “I’ll be thinking about  Michelle, and the journey we’ve been on together.”

Continue reading

CAN OBAMA BE IMPEACHED?

NewsWithViews.com

As the nation searches for the proper peaceful remedy to the crisis known as Obama, good people of good intentions often research a common subject and arrive at a different conclusion. Such has been the case on the topic of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama can be impeached.

In a WND column dated July 14, 2011 titled Why Obama Cannot be Impeached, the writer states, “Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.”

The author’s position is based upon statements from Dr. Edwin Vieira, a Harvard trained attorney, who’s works are focused primarily on land rights and militias. Dr. Vieira issued his position in a 2008 piece written and released before the 2008 election, Vieira suggests that once Obama takes office via fraud, he cannot be impeached, on the basis that impeaching a usurper of the office would somehow validate his tenure in office. Is he right?

To be sure, the Obama Crisis presents a highly unusual set of circumstances, rising to the level of constitutional crisis in a number of ways. The proper peaceful remedy is indeed worthy of research and debate. Only once the people agree on a proper course of action, can action be taken… so, it is imperative that the people reach agreement on this matter.

Continue reading