¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Responder
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005
0 Kudos

Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

By Guy Benson 3/30/2012

 

Two must-read pieces to start your weekend off right.  The first comes from Peggy Noonan, whom Allahpundit correctly identifies as one of 2008's misguided "Obamacons" (conservatives who were taken in by the Democrat's pragmatism charade).  Noonan has grown increasingly critical of Obama's performance in office, but the tone of her latest column suggests she may have reached a tipping point.  Her distaste has become personal, if not visceral.  A sampling:

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault. The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!"

Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives. What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

...

If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.

He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O'Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.  An American president has to make cooperation happen.  But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Read the whole thing.  Despite Obama's best efforts, Krauthammer was never bamboozled by the "hope and change" fraud.  Dr. K drops the hammer on the president's open mic moment in the Washington Post:

You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people. Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections. Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.

...

Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy. Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough? Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.

... Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire? They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know.

As I noted yesterday, the DNC has elevated Putin puppet Dmitri Medvedev to official Obama surrogate status, and the Soviet-era propaganda rag Pravda is editorializing forcefully on behalf of Obama's re-election effort.  Read the piece.  It's comical -- replete with dark suggestions that President Bush stole the 2000 election and angry potshots at Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney 2012: Because Pravda Hates Him.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

OBAMA LOSING SUPPORT AS HE PANDERS

OPINION: Obama could be the Republican MVP

By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
March 31st, 2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

President Obama has long been criticized for his policies, but now more and more people are criticizing him for his conduct as President. There have always been those who dislike him for his affiliations, his controversial history, and even (sadly) for his race. Now Obama is giving people something more-and real to dislike.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - President Obama is being seen by more and more people as a disingenuous, bad faith actor. This perception is key. While the current crop of Republican candidates are being panned as uninspiring, public disillusionment with the administration is also high.

Recently, Peggy Noonan wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “Not-So Smooth Operator.” Noonan calls Obama as she sees him, which is as a deceptive politico.

This matters because the coming election will be close, and Obama’s perception will be a critical factor.

There’s a lot to talk about. From Obama’s personal war with Catholics, to his hard-line stance against Israel, he’s bleeding support.

Recently, during negotiations with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, he promised “flexibility” on the issue of missile defense - after the coming election. A statement he made with an open mike during what he assumed was a private moment. The gaffe is telling - it suggests Obama is being dishonest with the American people.

Worse, it suggests he’s selling out to domestic and foreign interests and his obligation to serve the people isn’t being fulfilled. For longtime detractors, this is nothing new, but for former supporters, the realization is upsettingly fresh.

And the upset grows. His comments on the Trayvon Martin case seemed trivial and self-serving rather than a genuine expression of sorrow and a pledge to see justice served.

Perhaps President Obama’s crowning offense has been, and continues to be, the healthcare debacle which finally saw its day(s) in court last week. While home values decline, unemployment and under-employment remains high, wages stay low amid fears of inflation, and international issues become crises, Obama seems to be able to do little more than make domestic enemies.

Main Street continues to reel from the recession (Wall Street is just fine, thank you) and Obama’s top priority appears to be ensuring women can get free access to birth control and abortifacients.

Even the “compromise” he put forward to assuage the ire of Christians, particularly Catholics, over the HHS edict seemed superficial and contrived. Worse, his compromise did nothing to improve the situation either politically, or in reality.

The public has already lashed out at Obama once. In the 2010 midterm elections America seated a Republican majority in Congress. This has forced Obama adopt centrist positions on many issues, but his concessions are forced and Americans can feel it, and even many of his supporters don’t like it.

If Obama loses the election in November, few people will mourn. Obama has been given four years, two with control of the House and Senate. Despite that control, Obama could not fix the economy, stave off a growing crisis with Iran, or otherwise improve the quality of life for Americans. It can be debated how much control he actually had over these issues, but had they improved he would certainly be quick to claim credit.

Even his legacy legislation - healthcare reform, seems destined for disaster.

We expect Republicans to say and do everything they can to defeat Obama. We do not expect Obama to help them - but so far he’s doing a good job.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional  Scholar

[Excellent]America's Right ^ | April 2, 2012 | Jeff Schreiber

 

Dear Mr. President,

Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional  scholar. At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being  merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you  once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”



Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.



While my Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in  Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School,  within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not  already know of and understand perhaps the single most important decision in the  history of the United States Supreme Court were introduced to Marbury v.  Madison.



In Marbury, the United States Supreme Court held that  federal courts across our nation not only have the authority, but also the duty, to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress–including  statutes and treaties–and to designate as void those acts of Congress which  countermand the United States Constitution. The term you’re searching  for between those flappy ears of yours, Mr. President, is “judicial  review.” And, while it has been nearly two years since I opened up a  Constitutional Law book and can now debate divorce and family law in South  Carolina better than I can the Constitution, I recall enough from law school and  bar exam study to know that the doctrine of “judicial review” is now settled  law.



In other words, since the landmark Marbury decision came down from the Court you belittle as “unelected” in 1803,  because of “judicial review,” federal courts in the United States of America  have the power–and duty–to review laws passed by Congress, decide whether or not  those laws either comport with our Constitution or countermand it, and either  uphold those laws that pass constitutional muster or declare void those laws  that do not.



Not a difficult concept, Mr. President. Not a  difficult concept for a first-year law student at Rutgers-Camden, and certainly  not a difficult concept for a Harvard Law grad who lectured on Constitutional  Law at University of Chicago Law School and later went on to deceive a nation  into crowning him president of the United States. This ain’t race-baiting or  class warfare, Mr. President, but Marburyand judicial review should  nonetheless certainly be in your wheelhouse.

So, what’s the problem? Earlier today, according to Fox News  and other sources, this apparently happened:

President Obama, employing his strongest  language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care  overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while  repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case  at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The  president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret  about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could  overturn a law approved by Congress.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not  take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law  that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not  only Constitutional Law but basic civics that I don’t even know where to  begin.



First, even a second-grader understand[s] that the the  United States Government is split into three separate branches in order to  insulate one from another and provide checks and balances for each. While it is  easy to understand how a totalitarian like yourself would have trouble  distinguishing the lines between the various branches; after all, you have an  established penchant for making illegitimate recess appointmentsand  facilitating regulatory and other extra-legislative mechanisms designed to  eschew and usurp the traditional role of the Legislative Branch — is it no  surprise that you are utterly incapable of understanding why Justices of the  United States Supreme Court are indeed unelected?



Second, that you would  preemptively describe as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” the prospective  decision by the Supreme Court that your signature piece of legislation is  unconstitutional and therefore void shows that your ignorance is surpassed only  by your myopic inability to see past your political ideology and goals.  According to the Congressional Research Service’s The Constitution of the  United States, Analysis and Interpretation(the 2008 supplement, pages  163-164, in case you’re looking), as of 2010 the United States Supreme Court has  declared unconstitutional and therefore void a whopping 163 acts of Congress.  You do know what “unprecedented” means, right? The Supreme Court overturning  ObamaCare would hardly be “unprecedented” — perhaps it could be “unprecedented,  unless you count those previous 163 precedents.”



Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President?  Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who  disobey. That’s unprecedented.



At this point, Mr. President,  just give up. Please. Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who  have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire  body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are. No  wonder you don’t want to release your transcripts — any undergraduate student  who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any  law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review  probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator  door.



I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of  health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix. I understand how it  works. I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability  to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium  costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix.  It’s a brilliant political maneuver.



But it’s also  unconstitutional.

And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as  much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the  legislation. The law simply runs afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United  States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically  elected Congress” will change that.



Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably,  you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at  Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who  was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let it  happen.

 

Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure  ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and  smiling.



Good luck with your re-election.



Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Schreiber, Esq.

Más en Univision.com: href="http://foro.univision.com/t5/WQBA-1140-AM/TO-President-Barack-H-Obama-Constitutional-Scholar/t...

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

Forbes to Newsmax: An Obama Win Will Lead to New Recession
April 4, 2012
By: Jim Meyers and John Bachman

Forbes magazine editor and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes tells Newsmax that Mitt Romney will win the GOP presidential nomination and defeat President Obama in the November election.

But he warns that an Obama victory — perhaps even the anticipation of an Obama win — will lead to a market selloff and another recession.

Forbes is president and CEO of Forbes Inc. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, urging the adoption of a flat income tax with a single tax rate. He makes frequent appearances on the Fox News Channel.

Forbes originally endorsed Rick Perry for the Republican presidential nomination. But with victories in three primaries on Tuesday, Mitt Romney appears to have the nomination sewn up.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Forbes was asked if he has any reservations about now supporting Romney.

“No, I’ll support whoever the nominee is and it looks like he is going to be the nominee,” he says.

“I thought his victory speech [Tuesday night] was very different from the ones he gave before. He didn’t use the pronoun ‘I’ as he tended to do. He was dressed with a necktie instead of the open shirt collar. That’s fine during the day but at night you should dress up for the occasion of addressing the nation. And he gave a speech where he went into much more substance than he has before.

“One of the things about the primary process is it does make you a better candidate, and I think he is light years ahead of where he was three or four months ago.”

Story continues below the video.

Forbes is active with the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee. One of candidates the group is supporting is Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is running in the GOP primary against incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar.

Forbes explains why he is backing Mourdock: “I think that Richard Mourdock brings a kind of perspective you need today, a kind of dynamism. I think he earned the gratitude of the nation when he tried to uphold a thing called the rule of law when Obama put in his imposition of a bailout on Chrysler and General Motors. He tore up the rule of law. He tore up precedent in bankruptcy. That’s what you do in Argentina, not the United States of America. He resisted.

“Unfortunately the courts did not have the backbone to stop this usurpation of the rule of law. But since then, because of his efforts and the efforts of others, the atmosphere’s changed dramatically where the challenge to Obamacare is now treated with a seriousness that would have been inconceivable two years ago.

“He’s also against the blowout in government spending, wants to simplify the tax code and good things like that. So he brings that good conservative perspective and the energy to try to make positive things happen.”
Forbes cited other candidates the Club is backing.
“[Arizona Congressman] Jeff Flake is a very good candidate [for the Senate]. There’s no incumbent there — Senator John Kyl is retiring,” Forbes says.

“Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel in Ohio [running against incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown] is another good one.

“The key thing, whether they’re running against an incumbent or running for a seat where you don’t have an incumbent or challenging a Democratic incumbent, is if they get to Washington are they going to have that kind of dynamism and perspective and understanding why they’re there that so often gets lost when you go to Washington.

“And so if you get a good conservative core there in the Senate, people like Senator Mike Lee from Utah, get allies there, then that’s going to have a profound impact.

“I think Romney will win the election against Obama. But if you have a good conservative core in the Senate you’re going to get things on his desk, the president’s desk, that I think are going to be much stronger for the country, much better for the country, than if they weren’t there.

“So this isn’t just about winning a particular race, it’s also about having the cadres, so to speak, who can make positive things happen.”

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned of a pending fiscal cliff that the nation is approaching. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire on the first day of 2013, and deep spending cuts are also in the works.

Asked if lawmakers in Washington will be able to deal with this “cliff” without causing turmoil in the markets, Forbes responds: “After the November elections, if President-elect Romney makes it clear that he’ll sign temporary legislation on January 20 extending those tax rates for a few months so Congress can make deliberations on a whole new tax bill, I don’t think the markets are going to have much of a hiccup. I think they’ll make the Bush tax rates retroactive to January 1.

“So the key is who wins the election. If Obama happens to win, I think you’ll see a market selloff. I think we’ll be on the way to another recession. And I think the markets, if they anticipate Obama will win — markets don’t wait for a bad thing to happen, they sell off before it happens.”

Newt Gingrich has said he would support Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential race to ensure an open convention in Tampa in August. Forbes sees that scenario as unlikely.

“The voters have been speaking, and of the contests so far Romney’s won 20, Santorum 11, Gingrich two, Paul none,” he tells Newsmax.

“So no matter what Santorum or Gingrich does together or separately, Romney is going to end up probably picking up the delegates — unless he does something truly crazy. But he’s a disciplined enough man where I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

He was also asked if he believes a Republican White House and GOP Congress would implement a flatter tax code.

“I don’t think you’re going to get a proposal from Mister Romney on the flat tax,” he declares.

“As a matter of fact when I ran 15 years ago, he did ads against the flat tax. But the key thing is if you have the right people in the House and the Senate, the tax bill — and there will be a tax bill or tax bills plural — will be shaped in a way where I think we will get dramatic simplicity.

“We might not get a pure flat tax but we’ll get something pretty close to it, and maybe the flat tax itself. I don’t think Romney is going to resist if he sees there is strong support for genuine tax simplification. I don’t think he wants to meet the fate that the senior George Bush met when he went against the base of the party.

“So the key thing is to have a good base in the Senate, a good base in the House, and then I think we can positively shape the tax legislation.”

Commenting on the United States recently surpassing Japan as the nation with the highest corporate tax rate, Forbes says: “It’s part of the reason why the U.S. economy is not doing well, why this recovery is so punk — proportionately probably even worse than from the early ‘30s.

“Normally when you have a big downturn you have a sharp upturn, at least initially. This time we didn’t get a sharp upturn. This year we’re going about 40 miles an hour on a superhighway when we should be doing about 80, and one of the reasons is the uncertainty about taxes and the high tax burden.”

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Withering: Krauthammer, Noonan Demolish Obama Policies

Obama parties, campaigns all the time on taxpayer’s dime

27 April 2012

By: Administrator

 

The President certainly enjoys the perks of his pposition in the White House. From extravagant vacations to approximately 100 rounds of golf, it has been a pretty enjoyable tenure for Mr. Obama. He has been able to meet celebrities, travel the world and play his favorite games.

While our nation’s problems are not his primary concern, the President sure acts interested when giving speeches in battleground states. Most of these speeches are political and not official business, but the President continues to charge the travel expenses to the American people.

The President’s plane, Air Force One, costs an astounding $179,750 per hour to operate, according to the Pentagon. The plane, along with security, lodging, meals and ground transportation are some of the many expenses involved in any presidential trip. With a huge budget deficit and tremendous economic problems, taxpayer funds should not be wasted on presidential fundraising and campaign junkets.

Since the beginning of his re-election campaign in April of 2011, the President has held 124 fundraisers, more than double the number held by George W. Bush during his entire 2004 re-election campaign. Quite often, the President will combine the political trips with some sort of “official” business so the taxpayers will have to pay the costs.

Earlier in the week, President Obama visited with college students, took pictures at a bar with a shocked young woman and appeared on a late night talk show. Obviously, it was all great fun, quite a contrast to the anxiety most Americans feel dealing with this awful Obama economy.

The latest political excursion was not official business, but more campaigning, which is the activity that President Obama enjoys the most. He hates governing and leading and prefers speaking to adoring audiences, shaking hands and kissing babies.

With polls tight and the economy in the doldrums, Obama will be on the campaign trail non-stop through November. The costs for all of these political activities should not be billed to the taxpayers of this country.

In fact, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) believes that the President’s re-election campaign should pay for his recent political trip. He demanded that the President “reimburse the Treasury” for the costs of the questionable visit to the three battleground states of Iowa, North Carolina and Colorado.

Boehner is not the only person who has noticed this obvious taxpayer abuse. This week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed an official complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

In his latest swing, the President was supposedly focusing on the issue of student loans, which gave him an excuse to visit college campuses in three crucial states that the President needs to win in the fall election. This taxpayer abuse is nothing new. Just recently, the President traveled to Florida and gave an “official speech” after a day of campaigning, thus charging it to the taxpayers.

According to Boehner, “For the president to make a campaign issue out of this (student loans) and then to travel to three battleground states and go to three large college campuses on taxpayers’ money to try to make this a political issue is pathetic.”

The real problem is the horrible economy which is preventing college students from landing a job after they graduate. If graduates find work and do not have to live with their parents, they are more likely to reduce or fully retire their student loans.

The best way for President Obama to solve the student loan crisis is to change his disastrous fiscal policies so our economy can rebound. Unfortunately, he is committed to his big government agenda and to campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime, which are more reasons why Americans need to make a change on November 6, 2012.