El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria biparti

[siboneyes]

Part 2

Obama is still bragging about massive federal subsidies to the wind- and solar-power industries, while making it nearly impossible to obtain new leases for fossil-fuel exploration. Yet for all the billions spent, the percentage of new energy produced by subsidized high-cost “green” projects has not changed much.

Meanwhile, revolutionary breakthroughs in the exploration for and recovery of natural gas, oil, tar sands, shale oil, and coal deposits in just a year or two have vastly expanded the nation’s fossil-fuel reserves and the ability to produce clean energy from them.

It turns out that the U.S. may be the world’s new Saudi Arabia when it comes to known reserves of all forms of gas, oil, and coal. As our president still harps on solar panels and windmills, private enterprise on its own is exploring new ways of powering industries, homes, and cars with cheap and plentiful natural gas — hoping to free us from dependence on OPEC.

On illegal immigration, the president sounds like a calcified relic from the 1960s, as he evokes the southern border in terms of civil rights and racial prejudice. Those blinders explain why he recently suggested that Latinos should “punish” their supposed conservative “enemies,” and quite falsely claimed that the border fence was completed, despite the supposed wish of his Republican opponents to add moats and alligators. All that rhetoric sounds as if it came from a beads-and-bell-bottoms ’60s campus activist, not the 21st-century White House.

In the coming decades, the United States will need new legal immigrants — those of all races and from all places of origin who are skilled and highly educated, or who have capital. The new critical benchmark to keep America competitive will be an immigrant’s merit — not just his race, family ties, or proximity to the border, or his usefulness as a pawn in partisan politics.

The United States is now a multiracial society, one never more intermarried and assimilated. Yet this administration still acts as if particular racial groups are forever preserved in amber, and so deserve particular racial set-aside spoils. The attorney general weirdly talks of “my people.” The president himself offered a campaign video in 2010 targeted in part to those defined by their race, as part of a larger strategy to appeal to racial bloc voting.

Promises of more federal entitlement money are still couched in thinly veiled racial terms — as if there were no awareness that five decades of such Great Society programs have done much to ensure dependency and destroy the traditional inner-city family.

“Hope and change” turned out not to be a liberal call to consider new ways of solving problems. It was not even a conservative slogan to keep all that has worked well in the past.

Instead, Barack Obama proved to be an old-fashioned reactionary. He hoped to change things back to the politically correct 1960s and 1970s way of doing them — whether it ever worked or not.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[siboneyes]

Part 2

Obama is still bragging about massive federal subsidies to the wind- and solar-power industries, while making it nearly impossible to obtain new leases for fossil-fuel exploration. Yet for all the billions spent, the percentage of new energy produced by subsidized high-cost “green” projects has not changed much.

Meanwhile, revolutionary breakthroughs in the exploration for and recovery of natural gas, oil, tar sands, shale oil, and coal deposits in just a year or two have vastly expanded the nation’s fossil-fuel reserves and the ability to produce clean energy from them.

It turns out that the U.S. may be the world’s new Saudi Arabia when it comes to known reserves of all forms of gas, oil, and coal. As our president still harps on solar panels and windmills, private enterprise on its own is exploring new ways of powering industries, homes, and cars with cheap and plentiful natural gas — hoping to free us from dependence on OPEC.

On illegal immigration, the president sounds like a calcified relic from the 1960s, as he evokes the southern border in terms of civil rights and racial prejudice. Those blinders explain why he recently suggested that Latinos should “punish” their supposed conservative “enemies,” and quite falsely claimed that the border fence was completed, despite the supposed wish of his Republican opponents to add moats and alligators. All that rhetoric sounds as if it came from a beads-and-bell-bottoms ’60s campus activist, not the 21st-century White House.

In the coming decades, the United States will need new legal immigrants — those of all races and from all places of origin who are skilled and highly educated, or who have capital. The new critical benchmark to keep America competitive will be an immigrant’s merit — not just his race, family ties, or proximity to the border, or his usefulness as a pawn in partisan politics.

The United States is now a multiracial society, one never more intermarried and assimilated. Yet this administration still acts as if particular racial groups are forever preserved in amber, and so deserve particular racial set-aside spoils. The attorney general weirdly talks of “my people.” The president himself offered a campaign video in 2010 targeted in part to those defined by their race, as part of a larger strategy to appeal to racial bloc voting.

Promises of more federal entitlement money are still couched in thinly veiled racial terms — as if there were no awareness that five decades of such Great Society programs have done much to ensure dependency and destroy the traditional inner-city family.

“Hope and change” turned out not to be a liberal call to consider new ways of solving problems. It was not even a conservative slogan to keep all that has worked well in the past.

Instead, Barack Obama proved to be an old-fashioned reactionary. He hoped to change things back to the politically correct 1960s and 1970s way of doing them — whether it ever worked or not.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[siboneyes]

:colera:

[siboneyes]

Nice DREAM: On Immigration, Dem Promises Become Lies
Pajamas Media ^ | July 6, 2011 | Ruben Navarette Jr

When will Latinos wake up?

   In what I regard as a healthy development, more and more Hispanics have to come see the Democrats’ handling of the issue as one gigantic scam.

    C’mon. It’s no coincidence that the DREAM Act is back on the congressional agenda just as President Obama is beginning his “kiss and make up” tour with Hispanic voters in the hopes that they will turn out to vote for him in 2012.

Their support is hardly a foregone conclusion. Many Latinos are disappointed and disillusioned with Obama and his administration over immigration. They see the president as too eager to compromise, and too desperate to show white voters
that he “feels their pain” over illegal immigration (he has deported nearly a million people since taking office).

So Obama needs to talk fast if he has any hope of stopping Latinos from going the way of the independents who have already deserted him.

    What could he offer them? Refried Dreams.

He’s set to reheat and serve up the DREAM Act, which would grant a pathway to legal status to undocumented students who go to college or join the military.
    Many Latinos support the idea, and they might be inclined to give Democrats credit for pushing it.

   They should read the fine print. Senate Democrats already scuttled the bill once before, when five of them — Max Baucus of Montana, Jon Tester of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — bolted from party leaders and voted against cloture during the lame duck session in December.

  Now the bill has been reintroduced, and it’s hard to see how the outcome of this vote will be any different.

  Back in December, if those five Democratic votes had gone the other way, the DREAM Act would have gone to the floor for a vote and probably passed. Even if the Republicans had tried to ssecure a filibuster, it would have likely have failed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the 60 votes to pass the bill.

At first, I was furious at Reid and President Obama for losing those votes. I thought to myself: “You’re telling me that Reid, as Senate majority leader, doesn’t have the power to twist arms, offer incentives, or make threats to get five measly votes? Or that President Obama, if he were so inclined, couldn’t do
the same? They did a good job of rustling up strays during the health care debate. But then, there was an issue that Democratic leaders actually cared about.”

[siboneyes]

part 2

   And I was even more furious when Democrats managed to doctor the crime scene to make it look as if Republicans were the real culprits — just like they always do on immigration, ensuring that no self-respecting Latino would dare vote for a Republican for any office. In the long run, when one political party takes them for granted and the other writes them off, Latinos lose.

   Now, seven months later, I’m no longer furious at Democratic leaders for what happened with the DREAM Act. I’m impressed. The Senate Democrats really fooled me, and a lot of other people who were inclined to believe that Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Democratic Party really wanted to pass it.

  Guess what? They don’t. Why would they? As it stands, it’s a great issue to bludgeon Republicans with to score points with Latino voters. If they did pass the DREAM Act, they know they’d own the bill — and have to wear it around their neck in the 2012 elections. Given that some people consider the bill an “amnesty,” they don’t want that.

   So it’s entirely possible that Reid didn’t lose those five votes so much as cut them loose. I bet that he deliberately orchestrated those five defections to allow Democrats to enjoy the best of both worlds — thwart passage of the DREAM Act while casting blame on Republicans. It was a win-win.

    Now that the idea is back, we can expect Senate Democrats to do what they did last time. Why not? It worked like a dream.

President Obama no-show miffs Hispanics

Some Latino legislators are  questioning Obama’s commitment to immigration reform.

By JULIE MASON | 6/19/11

Leaders of a national Hispanic organization are criticizing President Barack  Obama for skipping their annual conference for the third consecutive year after  he promised as a candidate in 2008 that he would return as  president.

  Some members of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed  Officials also are questioning Obama’s commitment to immigration reform, noting  that deportations have increased under his watch — even as the administration  intensifies its outreach for Hispanic votes. NALEO, which includes more than  6,000 Latino leaders who represent major blocs of voters in key electoral  states, opens its annual conference Thursday in San Antonio.

   The rift is noteworthy — and even a little puzzling — because of the  administration’s aggressive push for Hispanic support ahead of 2012. “Hispanics could very well decide this  election.”

     “It is getting harder and harder for the president to go into a venue where  he is confronted by Latinos because he is in a jam,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez  (D-Ill.), one of Obama’s earliest Hispanic supporters and a member of NALEO.

   “In front of a group like NALEO, blaming Republicans for their intransigence  on immigration reform and not addressing what the president’s own administration  is doing to immigrants would not wash,” said Gutierrez.

[sirjohn]

Historic tantrum of Adolescent President in the White House

Obama ‘Abruptly’ Walks Out of Debt Talks

July 13, 2011

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) told reporters outside the House chamber that Wednesday afternoon’s meeting at the White House ended with President Obama “abruptly walking out” of the room. Cantor expressed a growing frustration over the rapidly dwindling spending cuts believed to have been agreed to in the Biden negotiations, having gone from about $2 trillion in savings to less than $1.4 trillion over the course of several days.

  As Rich mentioned, much of the discrepancy is the result of Democrats’ taking cuts to mandatory programs and entitlements off the table, and insisting on additional spending. Cantor said this was likely the result of significant disagreement between congressional Democrats and the president.

    The Majority Leader recounted that toward the end of the discussions President Obama instructed negotiators to “get in the mode” because a final decision would have to be made by Friday. Cantor said he told the president that the two sides remain so far apart at this point that he doubted they could get to $2.5 trillion in cuts (to match the debt increase requested by the administration, enough to get through the 2012 election) given the time available.

    President Obama has said he will not sign any increase to the debt ceiling less than that amount, and Cantor had previously insisted that the House would vote no more than one time to increase the debt limit. Cantor said he was willing to abandon his pposition in order to allow some kind of short-term measure to increase the debt limit and reassure credit markets while negotiations continue, and asked the president if he would be willing to consider this option.

    At this point, Cantor explained, the president became “very agitated” and said he had “sat here long enough,” that “Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this” and “something’s got to give.” Obama then told Republicans they either needed to compromise on their insistence on a dollar for dollar ratio of spending cuts to debt increase or agree to a “grand bargain” including massive tax increases. Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

   Negotiators will, presumably, meet again at the White House on Thursday.

[siboneyes]

OBAMA, DEBT, UNEMPLOYMENT AND MISERY RECORDS

Fred Barnes

July 26, 2011

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off.... We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.

President Obama portrays himself as the nonpartisan adult in the room in the struggle over raising the debt limit. In his nationally televised speech Monday, he placed himself above Washington’s “three-ring circus,” as someone who has “put politics aside” and is desperate for a bipartisan “compromise” between Democrats and Republicans. But is this the role Obama has actually played over the past few weeks, as the August 2 deadline imposed by his administration nears? Let’s look at the record.

    In his speech, Obama made no mention of the bipartisan agreement presented to him on Sunday by Senate majority leader Harry Reid. It would have increased the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in two steps – one for about six months, and the second for approximately the following twelve months – and cut spending by a roughly equal amount. It was a deal worked out by Reid and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.

     Obama flatly rejected it. At the time, staffers of Reid and McConnell were working together on the final details of the agreement. When Reid returned to Capitol Hill, he withdrew his aides.

    It turns out the president insists that the debt limit be hiked in a single step, covering 18 months and allowing the government to borrow and spend past the presidential election in November 2012. This is necessary to avoid a credit downgrade, higher interest rates, and another slugfest in six months, he said.

    But are those legitimate concerns? The average length of debt limit increases is around seven months. “President Reagan did it 18 times,” Obama noted in his speech. That’s an average of a hike a bit less than every six months.

    Republicans have another explanation. “There is no economic justification for insisting on a debt limit increase that brings us through the next election,” McConnell said yesterday. “It’s not the beginning of a fiscal year. It’s not the beginning of a calendar year. Based on his own words, it’s hard to conclude that this request has to do with anything, in fact, other than the president’s reelection.” A vote next year would put a spotlight on Obama’s key political vulnerability, spending and debt.

   One might think from the president’s claim of aloofness that he acted as a fair and effective mediator in the five days of talks he presided over at the White House. Quite the contrary, according to three participants.

   He was not above the fray. He exacerbated disagreements.  Obama hardly let anyone else talk. When a Republican made a point, he would interrupt and dispute the point, talking on and on. Instead of tugging Republicans toward a compromise, he alienated them.

    Obama’s speech on Monday was not a serious attempt, by a nonpartisan overseer of the national interest, to bring Democrats and Republicans together. It was a partisan attack on Republicans.

[siboneyes]

OBAMA, DEBT, UNEMPLOYMENT AND MISERY RECORDS

Fred Barnes

July 26, 2011

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off.... We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.

President Obama portrays himself as the nonpartisan adult in the room in the struggle over raising the debt limit. In his nationally televised speech Monday, he placed himself above Washington’s “three-ring circus,” as someone who has “put politics aside” and is desperate for a bipartisan “compromise” between Democrats and Republicans. But is this the role Obama has actually played over the past few weeks, as the August 2 deadline imposed by his administration nears? Let’s look at the record.

    In his speech, Obama made no mention of the bipartisan agreement presented to him on Sunday by Senate majority leader Harry Reid. It would have increased the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in two steps – one for about six months, and the second for approximately the following twelve months – and cut spending by a roughly equal amount. It was a deal worked out by Reid and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.

     Obama flatly rejected it. At the time, staffers of Reid and McConnell were working together on the final details of the agreement. When Reid returned to Capitol Hill, he withdrew his aides.

    It turns out the president insists that the debt limit be hiked in a single step, covering 18 months and allowing the government to borrow and spend past the presidential election in November 2012. This is necessary to avoid a credit downgrade, higher interest rates, and another slugfest in six months, he said.

    But are those legitimate concerns? The average length of debt limit increases is around seven months. “President Reagan did it 18 times,” Obama noted in his speech. That’s an average of a hike a bit less than every six months.

    Republicans have another explanation. “There is no economic justification for insisting on a debt limit increase that brings us through the next election,” McConnell said yesterday. “It’s not the beginning of a fiscal year. It’s not the beginning of a calendar year. Based on his own words, it’s hard to conclude that this request has to do with anything, in fact, other than the president’s reelection.” A vote next year would put a spotlight on Obama’s key political vulnerability, spending and debt.

   One might think from the president’s claim of aloofness that he acted as a fair and effective mediator in the five days of talks he presided over at the White House. Quite the contrary, according to three participants.

   He was not above the fray. He exacerbated disagreements.  Obama hardly let anyone else talk. When a Republican made a point, he would interrupt and dispute the point, talking on and on. Instead of tugging Republicans toward a compromise, he alienated them.

    Obama’s speech on Monday was not a serious attempt, by a nonpartisan overseer of the national interest, to bring Democrats and Republicans together. It was a partisan attack on Republicans.

[sirjohn]

Obama Approval Rating Crashes to New Low

Posted by Thomas Ferdousi

7/29/2011

Barack Obama's standing with the public appears to be dwindling during the ongoing debt negotiations. Add to that a sour economy and a public souring the President is less-approved of than just several months ago. After a brief respite after the killing of Osama bin Laden, the President's job performance is not well-received by the people at
large.

Case in point is the most recent Gallup tracking poll. Taken over
the course of three days, the rolling poll is among the most accurate in the
business. According to the poll, the President's ratings have been falling the
last several weeks. In a similar Rasmussen poll out today, his performance is
rated favorably by 46%.

For Gallup, which usually tallies a higher approval rating for Obama than Rasmussen, this is not the case. The latest three-day average has Obama's rating down-- significantly.

Approve:
40%
Disapprove: 49%
Other/dk: 11%

Obama's approval rating had shrunk in recent weeks. For example, it had been hovering at 42% in Gallup recently. However, now that it has reached 40%, it is the lowest approval rating that Obama has had since elected. It was at 43% before bin Laden was killed May 2.

Now there is word that GDP growth is slowing and the debt issue is still on the table. To make matters more complicated, the July jobs numbers are coming out next week and could damage his ratings further.

[siboneyes]

OBAMA'S 50TH BIRTHDAY PARTY, $35,800 PER COUPLE

So much for the Marxist struggle against the bourgeois class.

Weasel Zippers ^ | July 14, 2011

(Chicago Sun-Times) — President Obama returns to Chicago on Aug. 3 to mark his 50th birthday with fund-raisers at the Aragon Ballroom, with tickets ranging from $50 a person to $35,800per couple, which includes VIP seating at a “Birthday Concert” where celebs will be performing and a dinner with the president.

The fundraiser at the Aragon, the historic ballroom in Uptown, will be one of the biggest third quarter events, expected to draw in national supporters. Obama’s 50th birthday is Aug. 4.

The Obama team on Wednesday reported collecting more than $86 million in second quarter fund-raising over $47 million directly for the Obama 2012 campaign and more than $38 million for the Democratic National Committee. . . .

Obama’s birthday bash at the Aragon was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times Stella Foster.

The event is multi-tiered: There is a concert at 4 p.m. — Foster said songstress Jennifer Hudson may perform — for the basic $50 contribution, of which there is supposed to be “limited availability.”

For $10,000, a person gets a souvenir photo with Obama at a reception and preferred seating at the concert. For $1,000 a person gets seated in a “premium section” with a “hosted bar.” A general admission ticket is $200.

SACRIFICIOS PARA EL PUEBLO, PARA LA NUEVA CLASE, FAUSTO Y DIVERSION... QUE SIGA LA FIESTA!!!!

[siboneyes]

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA
08-01-11 | TEDWINT

   Oh, I know you have not yet accomplished all of the things that you promised (or warned us of) when you campaigned:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”;

“if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant…it will bankrupt them”;

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” ;

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”;

and so much more… so much more.

   My gratitude is not inspired by your less-than-complete destruction of my country.

I am grateful for your being the catalyst that has caused the American people to awaken from their complacent coma, and become cognizant of the horrifyingly downward trajectory on which we find ourselves.

   You have jolted us into awareness with the subtlety of a fire alarm at 3:00 A.M., and the gentleness of a blindside kidney punch.

   Not unlike Rip Van Winkle, we have awakened from our slumber to find that, in twenty years:

    Unemployment has gone up roughly four percent in the last year-and-a-half.

In order to buy union votes, our politicians have promised ever-increasing, unsustainable public sector salaries, benefits and pensions to the point where they have leapfrogged to almost double those in the private sector, bankrupting our cities and states.

    This recent debt-ceiling debacle, while succeeding in making the United States a world-wide laughing stock, has spotlighted the fecklessness of our political system and those who clumsily implement it.

    As evidenced by the pathetic approval rating of Congress, as it inches ever-lower toward single digits, the American people have been coming to the realization that these folks that we elect are either incompetent or crooked, or both. And yet, back in 2008, when we were required to elect a new president, we asked ourselves, “Hey, how much damage can one guy do?”

   Well, thanks to you, Mr. Obama, we now know how much damage one guy can do. Oh, Momma, DO WE EVER KNOW NOW!!

    Battered and bloodied, we have somehow survived the first two-and-one-half years of your presidency, and with God’s help we will not perish as you finish out the remainder of your first term.

    But enough, already!!

It seems inconceivable that those of us who were stuppid or naïve enough to elect you in 2008, after what we’ve witnessed the past two-and-a-half years, are still stuppid or naïve enough to reelect you in 2012.

   It is time for you to clean out your desk in the Oval Office and fade into the history books as the man who almost took down the greatest superpower in the history of the planet. Quite an accomplishment!! I’m impressed!

     Nero fiddled around while Rome burned.

    Adolf Hitler almost destroyed Europe and the surrounding territories.

    George Soros brought the economy of Great Britain to its knees.

And now there’s Barack Obama.

You, sir, are in good company.

[sirjohn]

The Prediction Of Norman Mattoon Thomas

Is Coming True

Today, even the most socialist Dems will still deny that their

policies and the policies of Barack Obama are socialist.

Thomas was right.  We Americans will never “knowingly”

adopt socialism.

Are you ready to wake up yet?