Barack Obama as Divisive and Clueless as Ever on Labor Day … “If I Were Looking for a New Job … I’d Join a Union”
IT’S TOO BAD BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB NOW …
Barack Obama used Labor Day as yet another opportunity to spew divisiveness and and make a political speech. Barack Obama told a union audience in Wisconsin on Monday that while “Republicans in Congress love to say no,” he is the one who “placed a bet on America’s workers” and would “join a union” if he were looking for a new job. I guess mum was the word as Obama has said “NO” to the XL Keystone Pipeline and the thousands of jobs that would create for Americans, namely union workers. What a feckless, pathetic president who after six years of failure is still blaming others. Obama touted his accomplishments as president as real unemployment in the United States is at between 12.6% and 18%.
What is truly sick, is Barack Obama showed more passion at this union event than he did in his response to ISIS where he had no plan. Obama has done everything to destroy job growth in America as labor unions go along and act as his useful idiots.
CNN – The Divider in Chief was at it again:
The President used the Labor Day gathering of 6,000 union members and their families to herald organized labor’s role in passing the 40-hour work week, overtime pay for workers and a minimum wage. Standing before helmet-clad workers sporting “We Are One” t-shirts, Obama also said he would likely join a union.
“If I were looking for a good job that lets me build some security for my job, I’d join a union,” the President said to raucous applause. “If I were busting my butt in the service industry and wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union…I’d want a union looking out for me and if I cared about these things I’d also want more Democrats looking out for me.”
The midterms are important for Democrats and Obama’s legacy. Midterms in a second term are historically bad for the President’s party, and Democrats are facing the prospect of losing the Senate and staying the minority in the House in 2014.
“Republicans in Congress love to say no,” Obama said. “Those are just facts, the facts of life. They say no to everything.”
Barack Obama’s toxic presidency could cost Democrats control of the US Senate in 2014.
In 2008 many Democrats were swept into office on Barack Obama’s coattails like Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagen in North Carolina, Jeff Merkley in Oregon, Al Franken in Minnesota, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and Democrat victories in Red states like Max Baucus in Montana, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. However, that was then, this is now and 2014 presents the Democrat party with a Barack Obama “no-fly” zone to stay away from Senate races. From Obamamessiah to the toxic president in just 6 short years. Other than going to maybe Minnesota or Oregon, Obama will be a no show in the rest of the states. However, voters do not let that fool you … all of the Democrats above are fully behind Barack Obama’s agenda and have voted for Obamacare and illegal’s getting amnesty. Once the election is over, all of the above Democrat Senators will go right back to doing Obama’s bidding.
In an election that Republicans want to make all about President Barack Obama, the White House is determined to make him all but disappear in the battleground states that matter.
The White House is putting the finishing touches on a post-Labor Day schedule that will send the president to states where he’s still popular, such as: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, Obama officials and Democratic operatives said this week.
But in the red states that will determine control of the Senate, Obama will remain scarce. That means no personal campaign visits to states like Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina. He may do some targeted outreach through robocalls, digital ads and conference calls, but the campaign plan is clear: Stay away from candidates he’s already hurting.
Obama’s no-fly zone for certain Senate campaigns reflects the deep concern among Democrats about his drag on the national ticket. Obama can’t seem to get his poll numbers out of the low 40s, he’s struggled through an endless stream of foreign policy crises, and he’s the last person that many candidates want to be forced to defend on the campaign trail.
There are 36 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014. Of those seats, 15 are currently held by Republicans and 21 are held by Democrats. The GOP need a net pick up of 6 seats to retain control of the Senate. The control of the Senate will be determined by the below 13 states: 1 incumbent Republican, 1 open Republican, 6 Incumbent Democrat and 5 open Democrat.
- AK: Begich (D)
- AR: Pryor (D)
- CO: Udall (D)
- GA: Open (R)
- IA: Open (D)
- KY: McConnell (R)
- LA: Landrieu (D)
- MI: Open (D)
- NC: Hagan (D)
- NH: Shaheen (D)
- MT: Open (D)
- SD: Open (D)
- WV: Open (D)
WHEN IT ALL ENDS OBAMA WILL BE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY …
According to the most recent Gallup poll, Barack Obama’s “strongly disapproval” rating is more than double that of his “strong approval” one. Republicans have gone from 58% strongly disapprove in 2009 to 75% strongly disapprove in 2014. However, the real story may be in the disillusionment of Democrats. In 2009, 65% of Democrats had a strong approval of the Obamamessiah but in 2004 that percentage has dropped to 38%. It would appear that Barack Obama was not the one that they had been waiting for.
Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.
In the first year of Obama’s presidency, the percentages of Americans who had strong views about the job he was doing were essentially tied, but the strongly negative responses now significantly outweigh the strongly positive ones. The largest segment of Americans today, 39%, strongly disapprove of Obama’s job performance, while 14% moderately disapprove. Another 27% moderately approve, while 17% strongly approve.
Strong disapproval of the president’s job performance has been within 30% to 39% the four times Gallup has asked the question — in 2009, 2010, 2011, and now this year — but has risen by five percentage points since 2011, and by nine points since the first month Obama was in office. At the same time, strong approval has fallen by nine points in the last three years, and by 15 points since January 2009.
Pew Research/USA Today Poll: African Americans Think Race Relations Have Gotten Worse Since 2009 Under Barack Obama
WHO DIDN’T SEE THIS COMING FROM A COMMUNITY AGITATOR …
Wasn’t the election of Barack Obama supposed to make everything better in the United States, including race relation? Wasn’t the election of the first black president supposed to bridge the divide between races? Well a recent Pew Research/USA Today poll says, not so much, especially among blacks. The poll shows that blacks have a 64% positive view of relations between the races, down 12 points from 76% in 2009. Hmm, I guess an Obama administration of perpetual dividing and race baiting would do that.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY, conducted August 20 -24 among 1, 501 adults, finds that overall perceptions of relations between blacks and
whites are only modestly changed from five years ago.
Currently, 69% of the public, including majorities of both whites (75%) and blacks (64%), say blacks and whites in this country get along “very well” or “pretty well.” Since
2009, the share of blacks with a positive view of relations between the races has fallen 12 points (from 76% to 64%) while remaining largely unchanged among whites (80% in 2009).
Full poll can be read HERE.
From the WAPO: Blacks give police lower marks than whites.
Barack Obama Sends More White House Officials to Michael Brown’s Funeral than Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Funeral … Add Maj. Gen. Harold Greene & photo-journalist James Foley to the List
Sometimes a headline just says it all … What else would One expect from a Community Agitator?
Fox News reports, that the Obama administration sent more White House officials to the Michael Brown funeral than they did for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Hmm, Michael Brown, Margaret Thatcher … Michael Brown, Margaret Thatcher. Which one was more historic and important to America, let alone the world? It is just head-shaking the contempt this individual has and over-riding political agenda
The White House sent three officials to attend Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown in St. Louis — three more than it sent for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral last year.
The administration’s handling of the Brown funeral already has started to raise comparisons between the two.
For Monday’s funeral, the White House sent two officials with the White House Office of Public Engagement as well as Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force.
No White House officials, though, were part of the presidential delegation sent last year to Thatcher’s funeral. For that, the White House sent former secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker III — as well as the charge d’affaires to the U.K. and the former U.S. ambassador.
At the time, the nature of the delegation stirred controversy in the British media as tabloids claimed British officials felt snubbed that high-level American officials — including President Obama himself — were not attending.
How many do you think they sent to Maj. Gen. Harold Greene, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer killed in combat since the Vietnam War? Hint, Obama, the so-called Commander in Chief was not there, he was too busy with his vacation. How many did Obama send to the funeral of murdered American photo-journalist James Foley?
President Barack Obama sent no White House representative to the memorial Mass held yesterday in Rochester, New Hampshire, for James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) terrorists.
President Obama, however, did send three White House aides to Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American fatally shot in an encounter with a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo.
GAO Oversight Report: Obama Administration Broke the Law by Freeing 5 Taliban Terrorists in Exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
Barack Obama, The Law Breaker in Chief …
The GAO, Government Accountability Office, issued a report that concluded that the Obama Administration broke federal law when it released five Taliban prisoners from GITMO in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl without notifying Congress in advance. According to the GAO, the Pentagon “violated” the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act “when it transferred five senior Taliban prisoners to Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. The GAO also found that the DOD violated the “Antideficiency Act,” which prevents unauthorized government expenditures. As Hot Air opines, many Democrats in Congress spent much of the summer dismissing Republicans’ claims as partisan and even callous, preferring to focus on the return of an American soldier held captive rather than the politically expedient removal of the “Taliban Five” from American custody. Now we know what many had suspected and alleged … The Obama Administration broke the law.
The Obama administration violated federal law when it released five senior Taliban leaders from prison without notifying Congress, as is legally mandated, according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The GAO concluded in a report issued Thursday that the Obama administration failed to provide proper notification of the Taliban release and illegally used taxpayer funds that were not appropriated to enable the inmate transfer, according to the report.
The Obama administration in May secretly struck a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan to free from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba five of its top leaders in exchange for the return of captured U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was later accused by fellow soldiers of having deserted the Army prior to his capture.
The Pentagon was found to have “violated” the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act “when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees,” according to the report.
Barack Obama 5 for 1 swap was already on the wrong side with the American people and their belief that it was wrong to release 5 senior Taliban individuals in exchange for what many believe to be a military deserter, now we find Obama is on the wrong side of the law as well.
Transparency Eh? White House Rejects Media’s Demand for Openness … Flashback: “We have Put in Place the Toughest Ethics Laws & Transparency Rules in US History”
More from the most transparent presidency evah!!!
Remember when Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration in the history of America, the World and the Galaxy? Take a good look at the transparency promises that Barack Obama made and now compare that to what you have seen and read for the past six years. Mr. President, you get an F.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Barack Obama on Government Transparency in 2008 ... “I will allow you to comment on legislation before it is sign” … can you say Obamacare?
Flashback: Obama: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. (Oh My, Watch this One)
Obama-We’re the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History!
What a joke, the MSM gets the old “go pound sand” from the Obama White House in asking them for openness and transparency. What, did that actually think that
Richard Nixon Barack Obama was telling the truth about the promises of transparency?
The White House blew off a demand for openness and transparency from 40 prominent media groups, offering instead a “bunch of spin” that has reporters calling for a public debate on the administration’s anti-press policies, according to a prominent journalism organization.
“We need to have a discussion,” said David Cuillier, president of the 10,000-strong Society for Professional Journalists.
Cuillier, in Washington to address a national convention of archivists, told Secrets that White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday sent a response to a July 8 letter from SPJ and others demanding that the administration stop blocking reporter access to federal agencies and officials and end an overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”
But Cuillier said, “It was just a bunch of spin and typical non-response, response.” He added that, “I’ve seen no indication or acknowledgement that it’s a problem. If they don’t see it as a problem, then I’m not optimistic we are going to see any improvement.”
And, he worried, as the president continues to be put on defense over foreign and domestic policies, the tendency to stiff-arm the press will grow. “When you are a president besieged, attacked, and fighting for your political life, information is power and you want to control it,” he said.
The Audacity of Truth … Hillary Clinton Now Wants to ‘Hug It Out’ with Barack Obama after Trashing His Foreign Policy
Is there trouble in Paradise … Worse yet for Democrats, a 2016 apparent presidential nominee with Obama’s dismal foreign policy weighing her down.
It would appear that Obama has shown his thin skin again to criticism and Hillary Clinton has shown America once again that everything she does and says is for political expedience. Just days after Hillary Clinton trashed Barack Obama in The Atlantic and his foreign policy, she called President Obama on Tuesday to “make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him” when she recently discussed her views on foreign policy. HUH? In her interview, called his decision not to assist Syrian rebels early on a “failure” and dismissed the Obama administration’s foreign policy principle of “Don’t do stupid stuff.” But that was then, this is now, even though it is only two days later. Now Hillary looks forward to “hugging it out” with Obama when they see each other tomorrow night in Martha’s Vineyard. To borrow a line from the 80′s, “Oh my God, gag me with a spoon”. (Special thanks to Moon Unit Zappa and the Solid Gold Dancers.)
Sorry Hillary, you can’t have it both ways.
The statement from Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill noted that although Obama and Clinton have had disagreements, she has discussed these differences publicly before, including in her memoir, “Hard Choices.”
“Secretary Clinton was proud to serve with President Obama, she was proud to be his partner in the project of restoring American leadership and advancing America’s interests and values in a fast changing world,” said the statement, shared with POLITICO. “She continues to share his deep commitment to a smart and principled foreign policy that uses all the tools at our disposal to achieve our goals. Earlier today, the secretary called President Obama to make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his leadership.
It continued: “Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state. While they’ve had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues. Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when … they see each other tomorrow night.”
Bill “Bubba” Clinton asks, where’s my kiss?
How could anyone agree and intentionally want to link themselves with Barack Obama’s failed foreign policy? Let’s understand this, Hillary does not feel comfortable criticizing a president with a 30% approval rating on foreign policy, really? That would be the reality. But instead of holding to her guns, Hillary Clinton wants to now kiss and make up with Barack Obama. Or better yet, kiss Obama’s ring and beg him for forgiveness. Welcome to the real Hillary Clinton, a typical, lifelong, establishment politician who will say and do anything in order to gain power and stand for nothing.
As Hot Air opines, in fairness to her, I’m surprised at how much Team O has pushed back. His foreign policy rating is in the toilet; she’s the nominee-in-waiting. Of course she’s going to draw some distinctions between them, and it’s to the party’s benefit that she does so.
When forced to choose between protecting their own legacy and making life easier for the next Democrat to lead the ticket, the Hopenchange boys have made their choice. If this ship is destined to sink, they’re going to make sure that Hillary takes on some water too. Excellent.
Now she has her own choice to make. Having seen how hard the White House is willing to tug on her leash as she tries to walk away, does she tone down her criticism of them on foreign policy or risk making enemies of them by keeping at it?
How Presidential … Obama can’t handle to truth.
Barack Obama is facing bi-partisan criticism against his Syrian policy, or lack of one, that has lead to the the growth of ISIS. As the Daily Beast reports, top Democratic lawmakers agreed with Corker and Clinton that doing more to support the moderate rebels would have at least had a chance of averting or mitigating the current crisis, which has now spread to large parts of Iraq as ISIS expands its newly declared Caliphate. Who finds it priceless that the man who blamed George W. Bush for everything, now cannot handle when blame is rightfully heaped upon him?
How ironic that Obama call something horse$hit when his presidency has been crap.
President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horseshit.”
The argument that America should have done more in Syria, made for years by foreign policy leaders in both parties and several members of Obama’s senior national security team, was brought back to the fore this past weekend. Obama and Hillary Clinton gave dueling interviews in which they publicly split on whether the security and humanitarian catastrophe in Syria could have been avoided if the United States had played a larger role. Obama’s outburst on July 31, one week prior, reveals the criticism was already getting to him, even before the White House tried to deflect Clinton’s remarks as pre-presidential political posturing.
Just before the congressional recess, President Obama invited over a dozen Senate and House leaders from both parties to the White House to talk about foreign policy. According to two lawmakers inside the meeting, Obama became visibly agitated when confronted by bipartisan criticism of the White House’s policy of slow-rolling moderate Syrian rebels’ repeated requests for arms to fight the Assad regime and ISIS.
According to one of the lawmakers, Sen. Bob Corker asked the president a long question that included sharp criticisms of President Obama’s handling of a number of foreign policy issues—including Syria, ISIS, Russia, and Ukraine. Obama answered Corker at length. Then, the president defended his administration’s actions on Syria, saying that the notion that many have put forth regarding arming the rebels earlier would have led to better outcomes in Syria was “horseshit.”
And So Her 2016 Presidential Campaign Begins, Hillary Clinton Blames Rise of Islamic Militants (ISIS) on Obama’s Failed Policies & “Stupid Stuff”
Hillary Clinton blames Islamic militants rise on Barack Obama’s failed policies. But what difference does it make Hillary?
Suddenly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blames US foreign policy failures under President Barack Obama for the rise of Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria. Of course the follow up question would be, what foreign policy? In an interview with The Atlantic, Hillary suggested that Obama lacked a strategy for dealing with the jihadist threat. She said, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Hillary was referring to an Obama slogan. OUCH. Hey Libs and Dems, that’s Hillary Clinton agreeing with Conservatives and Republicans. How are them apples?
Obama and Hillary in friendlier times
The Gateway Pundit reminds us of what Clinton was saying on September 2011. In an interview with VOA Hillary Clinton said, “Al-Qaeda was on the path of defeat.”
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton blamed the rise of Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria on failures of US policy under President Barack Obama, in an interview published Sunday.
Clinton specifically faulted the US decision to stay on the sidelines of the insurgency against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad as opening the way for the most extreme rebel faction, the Islamic State.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad —- there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle -— the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton told the Atlantic.
Clinton, widely considered an undeclared presidential candidate, was an unsuccessful advocate of arming the Syrian rebels when she was secretary of state during Obama’s first term.
Hillary has lost that luvin’, sycophant feeling
President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army … fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).
This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.
But Hillary, what difference does it make? Oh, it suddenly becomes something to speak out and talk about to distance yourself from Obama’s failed policies because you want to run for president in 2016.
Posted August 11, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
2016 Elections, Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, ISIS, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Islamofascist, Jihad, Leading from Behind, Lost in Smallness, Politics, Syria, Terrorism, United States, War on Terror | 6 comments