Obama Is Lying

ObamaCare Far Less Popular Year After Passage

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Schaefer) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:52:14 PST

A year ago, Democrats who were in control of both houses of Congress, in addition to the White House, openly disregarded the will of the people and rammed ObamaCare down our throats. At the time, the Democrats claimed that their bill would become more popular once Americans found out what was in it. A process that, as Democrats explained, required passing it. They were wrong on both counts; they could have let us know what was in it before passing it and it is far less popular now than it was a year ago when it passed.

It also cost the Democrats the biggest mid term election defeat in 72 years. A year later, polls show that Obamacare’s popularity has declined even further.

A recent Bloomberg poll, which was heavily skewed towards Democrats (respondents were 30 percent Democrat and 22 percent Republican) shows bad news for Obamacare. Despite grossly under-representing Republicans, the Bloomberg poll shows that 52 percent of its respondents favor Obamacare’s repeal, while only 42 percent oppose it.

The only poll that regularly screens for likely voters is Rasmussen, and it offers perhaps the worst news of all for Obamacare and the Democrats. In the first Rasmussen poll taken after Obamacare’s passage, likely voters said that they thought the law would be “bad,” rather than “good,” for the country, by a margin of 8 points 49 to 41 percent. A year later, that margin has doubled, to 16 points 50 to 34 percent. Meanwhile, 50 percent of likely voters now think repeal is either “somewhat” (34 percent) or “very” (16 percent) “likely,” while only 37 percent think it’s either “not very” (31 percent) or “not at all” (6 percent) “likely.” So, 94 percent of Americans disagree with the proposition that Obamacare is “not at all likely” to be repealed. What odds would Barack Obama have put on that a year ago?

The biggest condemnation of all, across 53 consecutive Rasmussen polls, beginning the day that the president signed Obamacare into law and proceeding to today, is that Americans have supported repeal in all 53 of them - and by double-digit margins in all but one of them; the poll of October 4th, in which Americans supported repeal by “merely” 6 points.

Lest not forget, 26 states have challenged the constitutionality of the law in federal court. In addition to having become even more unpopular with Americans, it has been the subject of a successful repeal vote in the now-Republican House of Representatives, and it has been declared unconstitutional (in all or in part) by two federal judges. However, it has been a good year for those who oppose the consolidation of power and money in Washington, who value fiscal solvency, and who cherish liberty. It was also the issue which singularly gave rise to the Tea Party.

Union Boss Threatens Obama and Democrats To Do More For Unions Or Get No Union Support For 2012 Election

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Schaefer) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:41:18 PST

Union boss Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, already feels like he bought this President, along with most of the Democrats in the House and Senate. He is also keenly aware that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership expect him and his union brethren to spend mightily to get Obama re-elected. Most estimates, in fact, expect unions to spend upwards of $500 million on Obama's re-election campaign.

While Trumka has no problem spending $500 million of union dues on Obama’s re-election effort, he is astute enough to know that there is no better time to make demands on Obama.

Trumka recently issued an angry and rather direct threat to Democratic politicians across the nation during a speech at the National Press Club. In his speech, he demanded that Democrats show stronger support for unions or face losing their support.

“We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families? We are looking hard at how we work in the nation’s political arena,” Trumka said, according to prepared remarks. “We have listened hard, and what workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people – in the workplace and in political life.”

Trumka went even further than just saying he’ll hold elected leaders accountable. He said Democrats may be “controlling the wrecking ball” that’s crippling unions, too, and that he plans to stand up to either party.

“It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside – the outcome is the same either way,” Trumka said. “If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be – now, in 2012 and beyond.”

Obama is the most pro-union President in history

That Trumka and the unions are in any way disappointed with the support they get from the Obama administration is absurd. Never before in American history has an administration done so much – or hurt so many – to support unions. In fact, Obama has shown that there is nothing he won’t do for the unions.

Time and again, labor unions prove they are never happy, always demanding more, regardless of how unrealistic their expectations may be.

Barack Obama has proven there is nothing he won’t do for unions. He has done everything this side of outlawing capitalism to provide a Socialist Utopia for the Workers of the World Unite crowd. In fact, recent actions by the administration may actually be doing just that.

Since his inauguration, Obama has used various executive branch departments and federal agencies to advance union interests, regardless of how those actions have damaged the economy. At Obama’s behest, cabinet level departments and federal agencies have ignored the law and violated the Constitution in order to benefit unions.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is attacking Boeing for building a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina because it is a right to work state. Just who do they think they are? Where does Boeing get the nerve to expand and hire thousands of workers like that? This is a bad thing in this upside down world. Of course, it’s only a bad thing because South Carolina is a right to work state, and workers cannot be forced into joining a union just to get a job.

The NLRB and Obama apparently just can’t abide a factory staffed by honest, hard working Americans who need jobs; if they aren’t union workers.

The NLRB is also on the attack in Arizona, South Dakota (and likely Utah) challenging validly called and held elections that amend the state’s constitutions. Their offense? The constitutional amendments protect secret ballots in the case of workplace elections to determine unionization. It doesn’t matter in the slightest to Obama that these states called and held valid, lawful elections to amend their respective state constitutions if the result of those amendments isn’t beneficial to the unions.

The Obama administration has trampled the law, trampled the constitution and is now trampling on the American electoral process. With unwavering union support, Barack Obama has become the most corrupt President in US history.

Trumka and the unions will rattle their sabers and make outrageous demands, but in the end, they’ll spend another half billion dollars to buy Obama another election. Just like the last one.

Scott Schaefer | Intelligent US Politics

Democratic Candidates Find Endorsement From Obama Is The Kiss Of Death

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Schaefer) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:50:52 PST

Obama endorsements sunk two more Democratic candidates this month as his political capital continues to wane along with his popularity in the face of widespread voter rebellion.

Senator Benedict Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile election despite active involvement in the campaign by Obama. The Associated Press, in their infinite wisdom, said that this is "raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections." You think?

The first three all fell to Republicans. Specter's loss Tuesday to Representative Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary proves, unequivocally, that Obama's influence and popularity - even within his own party - is sinking fast. And he's taking Democratic candidates down with him.

There remains an outside possibility that Democrats will fare better than expected at the polls in November. I say this simply to appear as if I'm considering all possibilities. In reality, the November mid-term elections are going to be a horrible blood bath for Democrats.

Obama's waning popularity and abysmal record will almost certainly hurt his legislative agenda, as well as Democratic lawmakers who are seeking re-election are beginning to put distance between themselves and the White House and this phenomenon will continue increasing. The only thing they're doing faster than moving away from Obama is moving to get out of the way of the Tea Party.

"We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, the victorious Tea Party candidate in Kentucky's Republican Senatorial primary. Paul, along with scores of conservative candidates are praying that Obama campaigns for their opponents. This, it seems, would insure Democratic losses.

As Obama interjects himself into these Congressional elections he is hurting the candidates he supports by motivating his foes, such as Tea Party supporters. Barack Obama is creating a party of Political Cannibals, as I expressed in a recent article.

Especially embarrassing for Obama was Joe Sestak's victory in Pennsylvania over Specter, because Sestak won by portraying himself as being more faithful to the Democratic Party than were Specter and Obama. This is good stuff.

In the Arkansas Democratic primary, incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln, who is seeking re-election for what will be her third term in the Senate, failed to capture enough of the vote to avoid a run-off, despite - or maybe because of - Obama's support.

The Dear Leader is batting a thousand with his endorsements. He supported John Corzine in New Jersey, Creigh Deeds in Virginia and, of course, Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. The Democrats lost every race.

Hurry up, Mr. President, Democratic candidates across the nation desperately need your help. Now get out there and campaign for all of them. Please.

Obama Abandons 65 Years Of US Policy Exposes US To Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Scott Schaefer) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 03:28:56 PST

Barack Obama reversed 65 years of US policy of using the US nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. The move is akin to whistling past a graveyard, hoping that nothing bad will happen. It is also the exact opposite of the Peace Through Strength policy employed so effectively by Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama's decision to reverse 65 years of US nuclear weapons policy and drop most of the nation's deterrence capacity has alarmed critics who say they fear that the United States will now be more vulnerable to attack from would-be nuclear nations.

By changing the policy, the Obama administration hopes the United States can focus on stopping the spread of atomic weapons to terror groups such as Al Qaeda as well as halt North Korea's nuclear buildup and Iran's nuclear ambitions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday in announcing the new Nuclear Posture Review.

But skeptics say the policy change will only embolden those groups and tie the US' hands. This skeptic says the only way to describe the new US posture is bent over. This policy shift is a return to the failed policies of Jimmy Carter, and in fact, goes further. We all know how well that worked for Jimmy.

"I'm deeply concerned by some of the decisions made in the Nuclear Posture Review and the message this administration is sending to Iran, North Korea, and non-state actors who may seek to harm the United States or our allies," Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said in a written statement. "By unilaterally taking a nuclear response off the table, we are decreasing our options without getting anything in return and diminishing our ability to defend our nation from attack."

"We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea," said Arizona Republican Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl in a joint statement.

"The Obama administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would be proliferators and supporters of terrorism," they said.

The White House nuclear strategy review released Tuesday concluded the Obama administration will narrow the circumstances in which the US might launch a nuclear strike, will forego the development of new nuclear warheads and will seek even deeper reductions in American and Russian arsenals.

In presenting the results of the administration's policy review, Gates said a central aim was to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in US defense strategy. That will be include removing some of the intentional ambiguity about the circumstances under which the United States would launch a nuclear strike, Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

"If a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its obligations, the US pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it," Gates said. If, however, such a state were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies, "it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional," or non-nuclear, military response.

But former CIA spokeswoman and Republican strategist Jennifer Millerwise-Dyck told Fox News that nuclear weapons have been an important deterrent tool used for decades both Democratic and Republican administrations," and shouldn't be dismissed.

"If you look at history, and the time after the Cold War, it was a great deterrent for the Soviet Union when it came to preventing them from invading eastern European countries, for example. What you see here is part of what is rather disturbing pattern where the Obama administration continues to take away capabilities that the US needs in its arsenal," she said.

Supporters say Obama's review, which does not require congressional approval, does not mean nuclear weapons are being removed from the playbook never to return. But Obama's current push is designed to strengthen international support for strengthened nonproliferation efforts.

"Given Al Qaeda's continued quest for nuclear weapons, Iran's ongoing nuclear efforts and North Korea's proliferation, this focus is appropriate and, indeed, an essential change from previous" policy, Gates said.

Backers also say the strategy is not intended for nations that violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty like Iran, which is a signatory but is believed to be defying the pact.

Iran says its uranium enrichment facilities are for peaceful purposes and therefore it is not in violation of the NPT even though it has refused International Atomic Energy Agency inspections required by the pact.

The president's proposed policy was mocked outright Wednesday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys," Ahmadinejad said in a speech before a crowd of several thousand in northwestern Iran. "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience."

Tuesday's announcement was well received by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon.

"The secretary-general looks forward to the leadership of the United States in cooperation with other nuclear-weapon states, on further reducing and eliminating the role of nuclear weapons in security policies, which would contribute to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation," said a spokesman for Ban.

Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the policy change could carry "clear consequences" for security and he was concerned by "some of the language and perceived signals imbedded" in the policy. However, McKeon added that he is pleased the administration is keeping some of the existing deterrence framework and has "acknowledged that the conditions for a 'nuclear-free' world do not exist at this time."

But Millerwise-Dyck said biochemical attacks and other non-traditional threats go back to the the Clinton administration and nuclear deterrence was seen then as "a very important part of our way of protecting ourself."

Now, she said, "We have taken that off the table and I don't know what we've gotten out of it. It's not as if Iran is going to stop pursuing or something because we said, 'Don't worry, we won't attack a nation if they're not part of the club.'"

Frank Gaffney, a Reagan administration Defense Department official and president of the Center for Security Policy, told Fox News that the new policy is "arguably the latest evidence of the radicalism of the Obama administration."

"I think the fact that you've got a number of a military officers and secretaries of defense dressing this up doesn't change the fact that the President of the United States is embarked upon a truly radical and I think frankly hare-brained idea that we're going to somehow persuade everyone else in the world, including all the nuclear weapon states to give up their nuclear weapons if we progress inexorably toward the obsolescence and ultimately irrelevance of ours."

Gaffney added that Obama's rhetoric on devaluing, cutting and not modernizing US nuclear weapons "ultimately is going to reduce the deterrent that we have to something that we're going to have to pray people still think might work and therefore still be deterred by."

This radical, progressive President is risking the security of the United States and the lives of all Americans.