Obama White House Says, It’s Fair to Say We Were Wrong on Paris Unity Rally … WH Caught with Its Pants Down or Purposeful Decision?
Sorry Barack Obama, this is a little bigger than, oh sorry, my bad.
The Obama administration is in full spin CYA mode in the wake of the outrage of U.S President failing to attend the “Unity” march with numerous other world leaders as he opted to stay home instead and watch football. Quick, get the PR machine out there to lie to the media and people. White House spokesman Josh Earnest did his best to spin his way through the disastrous visuals and symbolism of Barack Obama or any other high level US leader being present for the march against radical Islam. White House spokesman Earnest said, “It’s fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” What ever do you mean, you mean sending no one of any importance what-so-ever was wrong? None of you could have figured this out in advance? Sorry, but that is BS. Obama told us all in the past that Bin Laden was dead and terrorism was on the run. To suddenly acknowledge that France just had their own 9-11 moment would go against Obama’s down playing of terrorism.
Barack Obama could not be reached for comment he was too busy
The White House said Monday that it made a mistake in not sending President Obama or a top administration official to the weekend unity march in Paris, a rare concession that it had botched the optics of an important international event.
“It’s fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at his briefing, which was dominated by questions about the march.
“We want to send a clear message, even in a symbolic context like this one, that the American people stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies in France,” said Earnest. “And sending a high-level, highly visible senior administration official with a high profile to that march would have done that.”
He dodged questions about who was responsible for the decision to have the U.S. be represented by the U.S. ambassador to France, saying only that it was a staff-level call the president was not personally involved in.
So, some how Barack Obama and his minions could see the importance of sending people to Ferguson, Missouri and to the funeral of an individual who robbed a store and assaulted a police officer, but they could not see the importance of supporting one of America’s greatest allies in France and 40 world leaders coming together in a show of solidarity against radical Islam.
The JV Presidency.
Wait, White House aides said Sunday, as they saw coverage come in of the anti-terrorism march in Paris — Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is there? Jordan’s King Abdullah? The presidents of Gabon, Benin, Niger? Not to mention the leaders of the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and other major allies — and even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov?
Somehow an event that the French didn’t even announce until Friday had quickly gathered momentum, drawing about three dozen foreign leaders to Paris to express their outrage at the killings of French citizens at a satire magazine and a Jewish supermarket last week. America’s representative, Ambassador Jane Hartley, looked a little out of place.
White House aides were so caught off guard by the march’s massive size and attention that they hadn’t even asked President Barack Obama if he wanted to go.
Posted January 13, 2015 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, Community Agitator, Democrat/Obama Propaganda, France, Incompetence, Islamist, Jihad, Liars, Lost in Smallness, Misleader, Obama in Wonderland, Radical Islam, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, War on Terror, World | 3 comments
Attorney General Eric Holder Cannot Simply Say “YES” When Asked Asked by Todd & Stephanopoulos Whether the US is at War with Radical Islam
AND YOU WONDER WHY BARACK OBAMA AND JOE WERE NOT PRESENT, AND HOLDER DIDN’T MARCH IN UNISON WITH THE OTHER WORLD LEADERS IN PARIS, THEY DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A WAR ON RADICAL ISLAM.
America, i hope you are proud of yourselves, this is the administration you not only elected once, but you did so again for a second time. This Sunday morning on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ and ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Attorney General Eric Holder was asked by both Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos whether the United States was at war with radical Islam. Holder could not find it in himself to simply say, yes we are. UNREAL. These people will be the death of us all. HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU DEFEAT THE ENEMY, IF YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE ENEMY!
Even France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that France was at war with radical Islam. However, this sorry bunch of SOB’s in the Obama administrations cannot bring themselves to say it … RADICAL ISLAM.
From NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ Eric Holder cannot say that the United States is at war with radical Islam.
Chuck Todd: the French Prime Minister today declared the France is at war with radical Islam. Would you say the United States is at war with radical Islam?
Eric Holder: Well, I would say we are at war with terrorists who commit these heinous acts. Who use Islam. Who use a corrupted version of Islam to justify their actions. We are bound and determined to hold them accountable. To find which ways we prevent young people who become attracted to this radical ideology, becoming members of these groups and perpetrating these heinous acts.
Eric Holder also made similar comments when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos the same question. (Transcript)
STEPHANOPOULOS: The French prime minister said yesterday that France is at war with radical Islam. Is the U.S. At war with radical Islam?
HOLDER: Well, I certainly think that we are at war with those who would commit terrorist attacks and who would corrupt the Islamic faith in the way that they do, to try to justify their terrorist actions.
So that’s who we are at — at war with. And we are determined to take the fight to them to prevent them from engaging in these kinds of activities.
Our president has indicated that we will be calling, on February the 18th, a summit, so that we deal with better ways in which we can counter violent extremism and really get at the core, come up with ways in which we prevent people from adhering to, being attracted to this terrorist ideology.
Charles Krauthammer: The Terror Attack in France on Charlie Charlie Hebdo Shows We Can Not Retain The Ambivalence Obama Has Taken Toward Nature Of War
Last night on Special Report syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer called the war on terror under President Barack Obama for what it has been, a non-seriousness of the big picture in a war against those that want to destroy us and our way of life in jihad. This is not to be conducted as a police action, it is war.
“And we have a president and these events remind us that you cannot retain this ambivalence about the seriousness of this and the nature of the war.”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Obama said we stand with the people of Ukraine. He said that we stand with the people of Syria. You know, they did the hashtag and the tweet of the girls in Nigeria. It’s nice to say all these things but if you are — by default or whatever reason — the leader of the free world as we have been you’re supposed to do something if you say that.
Look, I don’t think you want to blame anybody. I just think that these events are a reminder, and it’s not so much the attack on Australia, which was a semi-lunatic, who was sort of, you know, a deranged — there are deranged people around the world who will latch on to this ideology and abuse it. These guys did not look like deranged wanderers trying to discover a purpose or an identity. These are people who are killers, trained — the way they executed that cop laying on the street.
This is a war against an enemy and these are the elements of it. And we have a president and these events remind us that you cannot retain this ambivalence about the seriousness of this and the nature of the war. And that’s what worries me because as long as we think that we can deal with this like law enforcement we are going to be continuing to be exposed to a threat that could hit us as easily as it hits them and it deprives us of the weapons like interrogation, like intelligence, like human intelligence that Obama is depriving us of and has been for six years. (Special Report Online, January 7, 2014)
The Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation has just been one lie after another …
Remember when President Barack Obama promised that Obamacare would reduce the number of expensive ER visits as access to other kinds of care was expanded? But of course this is the same signature piece of legislation where Obama promised that you could keep your own doctor, hospital and insurance plan if you liked them. Those were all lies as well. When the majority of people that are signing up for it are doing so as a form of medicaid, of course the ER is going to be used as a clinic. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that one out. But of course Obama was going to lie through his teeth to the American people to get Obamacare passed, as Jonathan Gruber said, they had all considered the stupidity of the American voter to be key.
With the healthcare expansion last year, many are watching how the Affordable Care Act affects emergency room use.
President Obama has promised his signature health law will gradually reduce expensive ER visits as access to other kinds of care is expanded. Critics contend newly insured patients — especially those enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health program that picks up most patient costs — aren’t likely to seek care elsewhere, and will overwhelm emergency rooms.
Neither of those outcomes were clearly evident in the first months of the new healthcare system’s operation in Los Angeles County, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis.
Data hospitals report to the state show that as insurance coverage was extended to hundreds of thousands of residents, ER visits for ailments not serious enough to require an admission grew 3.9% in the county in the first half of 2014, compared with the same period the previous year. The growth is in line with annual increases of 3% to 5% in the three years prior to the federal healthcare overhaul.
- If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
- “Affordable” Care. Obamacare Will Make Health Insurance More Affordable, even the president’s ideological cronies acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act is far from inexpensive for most Americans and that it “risks being a cruel joke.”
- It will prevent people from going into debt.
- ObamaCare will lower costs overall.
- Congress Meant for Subsidies to Flow Through State-based and Federal Exchanges
- More Americans will be insured.
- The Individual Mandate ‘Is Absolutely Not a Tax Increase’
GRUBERGATE: Barack Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber Said Back in 2009, Obamacare Will Not Be Affordable
GRUBERGATE: HE’S BACK … GRUBER SAID IN 2009 THAT THE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE ACT WOULD NOT BE AFFORDABLE.
Imagine that, once of the chief architects of Obamacare, the Affordable Healthcare Act, said back in 2009 that it would not be affordable. Newly revealed Johnathan Gruber documents keep the unpopular signature piece of legislation by Barack Obama at the forefront of political discussion as 2015 will be much like 2014 for Democrats, running for cover and away from Obamacare. Johnathan Gruber is like the gift that keeps on giving. The docs reveal that Gruber questioned the affordability. Gruber said, “So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
American voters are stupid and Obamacare will not be affordable
President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.
As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law
Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.
Gruber goes on to admit that there were NO cost controls initially in Obamacare, that they would deceptively get people hooked on faux coverage, then pull the rug out from underneath them by rationing care:
“So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
At the same time, Obama was lying to Americans, telling us that annual premium costs would decline by an average of $2,500 per family, a number that was apparently pulled out of thin air.
Gruber then admits that, under Obamacare, the only way for the scheme to work will be by rationing care:
“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”
More From Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani … Obama’s ‘Propaganda’ Made People ‘Hate the Police,’ ‘Police are Bad & the Police are Racist’
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking the harsh reality of the truth …
“We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the President that everybody should hate the police. I don’t care how you want to describe it, that is what those protests are all about. The protests are being embraced. The protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, and a lot of them lead to violence, all lead to a conclusion, the police are bad and the police are racist. That is completely wrong. Actually, the people who do the most for the black community in America are the police, NYC and else where. They are the ones, not the Al Sharpton’s, they are the ones who put their lives on the line to save black children.”
Federal Court in Pennsylvania Declared President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration Policy Unconstitutional
IMAGINE THAT, A FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR OBAMA TO BE AN EMPEROR …
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab has ruled that parts of Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional. It’s a start, even though any one with any common sense or grasp of the Constitution knows Obama’s executive order was Unconstitutional. Although this decision was part of a criminal case, look for this case to make it’s way through the federal court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
The full opinion can be read HERE.
Judge Arthur Schwab stated that Obama’s executive order violated separation of powers.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his 38-page opinion (posted here). “President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.”
The Pittsburgh-based judge rejected a Justice Department legal opinion arguing that Obama’s actions fall within the traditional realm of the executive’s discretion about which cases to pursue and which to overlook. Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, also quoted in detail from a series of public statements Obama made in recent years about the limits on his executive authority to make sweeping changes in immigration enforcement.
As Q and A opines, if this case goes to the SCOTUS, will the “ObamaCare is a tax” court manage to actually rule as this judge has, that the executive has unconstitutionally exceeded his power? Who knows anymore at this point. After Justice Roberts bent over backwards for Obamacare, one can only wonder whether the SCOTUS will get this one right.
Johnathan Gruber Apologizes … Rep. Trey Gowdy Grills Gruber: Did You Apologize Because You Said It Or Meant It?
YESTERDAYS MENU: GRILLED
GROUPER GRUBER …
Following Jonathan Gruber’s apology yesterday for his mean and insulting Obamacare comments during the during the House Oversight Committee, Gruber was grilled, baked and fried by House members on both sides of the aisle. Gruber apologized for his glib comments and used the defense during the hearings that he was not a politician. Of course Jonathan Gruber never thought his comments were inappropriate until the video came out. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled Gruber and said the following, “The pervasiveness of your quotes is so much that it has to be more than that. It has to be more than an episodic mistake that you made… What did you mean when you said you wish that you had been able to be transparent, but you’d rather have the law than not?… Did you apologize because you said it or meant it?”
How comical is it that they are now trying to make MIT economist Jonathan Gruber look like Sgt. Schultz, I know nothing.
Below is Johnathan Gruber’s lame attempt at an apology for his plethera of “stupid” comments. Gruber apologized for making “uninformed and glib comments” about the political process behind health care reform and used the defense he was not a politician. HUH? Now one of the architects of Obamacare is claiming he is not an expert and is using the Sgt. Schultz defense … He knows nothing.
“I would like to begin by apologizing sincerely for the offending comments that I made,” Gruber said in prepared remarks before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
He said in some cases he made “glib comments” about the process, and said his tone implied he’s an expert on healthcare, “which is wrong.” Gruber acknowledged his “insulting and mean comments” were uncalled for.
“I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” he said. “It is never appropriate to try to make oneself seem more important or smarter by demeaning others. I knew better. I know better. I am embarrassed, and I am sorry.”
Retired ABC News Journalist Ann Compton Discussing Barack Obama: He Launches ‘Profanity-Laced’ Tirades Against Press
Imagine how Barack Obama would have acted and dealt with the press if they were not carrying the water for his administration? It is hard to believe that Obama had an adversarial role with the media when it was basically the MSM and their lack of vetting or asking any sort of investigative questions that got him elected and reelected.
Transcripts below from Newsbusters - C-SPAN, 38:05:
ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.
LAMB: So, off of that experience, how many other presidents were that aware of what they said to you and how many just did not pay attention at all and you had no personal reaction from them?
COMPTON: I think most presidents realize – had a personal connection. I don’t think they ever — we were ever in a confrontation-type moment where they felt the need to apologize. I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals. Another where he took us to task for not understanding the limits he has with foreign policy and the way he’s dealing with the Middle East and Iraq, and Afghanistan. And I don’t find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell.
LAMB: Does he have a point?
COMPTON: From his point of view, he may. But we cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don’t take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they get — they reap what they sow.
Ask and You Shall Receive … Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Said Back in 2013, “Unelect” Me If You Don’t Like ObamaCare
HEY MARY, DON’T ASK FOR THINGS, THEY MIGHT COME TRUE …
Back on 2013, Sen. Mary Landrieu said the following about Obamacare and how to deal with it if you don’t like it, “We did not wake up one morning and declare this the law.” Um, actually you did. Landrieu went on the say, “the people of the United States declared this through us as their representatives. Then came the money line that Mary Landrieu may want to take back, ”And if they don’t like this they can unelected us. Believe me they will have the chance because I am up for reelection right now.” OK, YOU’RE GONE!!!
The good people of Louisiana took her advice and threw her out of office in a big way. Mary Landrieu lost by 12% to Republican Bill Cassidy in yesterday’s special Senate runoff election. As The Gateway Pundit reminds us, other states did the same thing as 29 of the 58 Democrat/2 Independents Senators who voted for Obamacare in 2009 are no longer in office. Following the 2014 midterm elections the GOP now controls the US Senate, 54-46 after gaining a net 9 seats.
UPDATE I: Don’t feel alone former Sen. Landrieu, exactly half of the 60 senators who voted for Obama’s health-care overhaul on Christmas Eve 2009 will not be in the Senate in January.
Nineteen of them retired or resigned, eight were defeated for re-election, and three died in office. In her concession speech Saturday night, Landrieu said that she and others “fought a good fight, and it’s not over yet, for health care” and that she was “glad we fought for it.” She didn’t specifically mention Obamacare.