Image 01

Obama faces a fractured congressional Democratic caucus as Congress grinds down Syrian refugee entry points

November 21st, 2015 by AHFF Geoff

President Barack Obama may be troubled by this morning's polling findings that 48% of American voters feel closer to the tea party's views than his own, while 44% prefer his views on issues over the tea party

President Barack Obama once again “leading” in the wrong direction with his pointy “professor” finger

Does any American understand why the Obama Administration and Soros are bringing Syrian refugees into America?

In spite of its transparent attempt to ape conservative rhetoric, funding for the National Immigration Forum comes overwhelmingly from left-wing foundations including not just Soros’ FPOS, but the Carnegie Corporation of New York, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

The truth is that, as the overwhelming bipartisan U.S. House vote indicated today, not even a majority of Democrats in the public still back President Obama’s suicidal plan to bring 10,000 Syrians to America.

The truth is, it’s the furthest-left forces in America, who for 50 years have systematically worked to bring what they hope will be future leftist voters into the country, that are using a sock-puppet front group to try to persuade conservatives to leave themselves open to a Paris-style attack.

Congress sure doesnt know why.  Not even the scumbag left wing congressional Democrats can stomach voting for importing Syrian refugees.  But of course, one hag amongst hags always votes for Soros sponsored garbage that hurts America – Nancy Pelosi – must be the “italian” influence.  HEre’s a list of the biggest losers in the Democratic party in 2015, and OBama of course is stating he will never sign the bill.

Late Wednesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a “Dear Colleague” letter urging a “no” vote on the Republican measure, saying it “slams the door on desperate mothers and children fleeing ISIS’s unspeakable violence.” It was signed by other Democrats including Lofgren and California Rep. Ted Lieu of Torrance and Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Luther King, Junior was a great man who would be ashamed of the current leadership of the SCLC

November 14th, 2015 by AHFF Geoff

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is shown discussing a forthcoming speech, March 18, 1964, from his home in Atlanta, Ga. Dr. King said that he had stepped up demonstrations in the south during the summer. (AP Photo)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is shown discussing a forthcoming speech, March 18, 1964, from his home in Atlanta, Ga. Dr. King said that he had stepped up demonstrations in the south during the summer. (AP Photo)

His own family is a bunch of loser trust fund babies fighting each other instead of working for the betterment of all Americans, which is the message of Republican Party and was and is the message of MLK, Junior, that is, judge not by the color of the skin of every American, but instead just judge by the content of the character of each and every American. But hey, i’m no judge so i guess his family is right to squabble and hate each other over money and power.

MSNBC Quote:

“The longstanding family drama surrounding the legacy of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is sharing the spotlight with the rapturous reviews for the new film, “Selma,” which depicts the life of the late civil rights icon.

Less than a week before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a ruling ended in no decision Tuesday as to who rightfully owns King’s personal “traveling” Bible and 1964 Nobel Peace Prize medal, a local NBC News affiliate reported. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney neglected to issue a decision in the battle between King’s surviving sons and daughter about whether or not to sell the two prized-possessions.”

Citation:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mlk-family-feud-continues-without-judges-ruling

Obama Approval Falls Back Under 50% in Wake of Egyptian Crisis

February 5th, 2011 by AHFF Geoff

Obama's Handling of the Egyptian Crisis May be the Cause of his Falling Approval

After the GOP victory in the November 2010 elections, with a net pickup of 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats, the Obama Administration has been attempting to cultivate a moderate, centrist image to regain its footing with the American public. President Obama’s deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, which would have expired on January 1, 2011, and his personnel shakeups in the White House worked to improve Obama’s standing with the public to above the critical 50% level by the end of January 2011.

However, in the past week, President Obama has now returned to the approximate level of public approval prior to the November elections, with about 45% of the public approving of his performance. The two main daily pollsters, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, demonstrate this recent decline in approval, with Gallup measuring 45% approval/47% disapproval and Rasmussen showing 46% approval/53% disapproval. The mainstream media has yet to report upon this end to Obama’s polling resurgence, despite the lavish attention paid to the rise in ratings. Rasmussen reported on this recent slide today in its report:

The president’s Approval Index ratings have fallen nine points since Monday as the crisis in Egypt unfolds. Most of the decline comes from a fall in the number who Strongly Approve of the president’s performance (30% on Monday, 23% now). However, for the first time since mid-December, the number who Strongly Disapprove has moved back over the 40% mark for five straight days. The Strongly Disapprove total had been above 40% for most of 2010 but fell to the high-30s after the president and Senate Republicans reached a deal to extend the Bush Administration tax cuts.

The major issue commanding media coverage in the past week or so has been the ongoing protests in Egypt against President Mubarak’s regime. The inconsistent and highly publicized statements of the Administration about the crisis, from Vice President Biden asserting that Mubarak was not a dictator and shouldn’t resign to Obama’s recent demands that Mubarak “immediately” begin a transition to a new government, may have unsettled some Americans who were moving in Obama’s direction in response to his post-election centrist manoeuvrings. Unfortunately for President Obama, it appears that his Administration’s handling of the crisis may have again soured the middle 10% of the country on his leadership.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Politicizes National Security By Censoring Talk of Islamic Fundamentalism

December 1st, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

Blast from the past – draft written in 2010, still applies some today, perhaps the GOP candidates should man up and condemn the lack of labeling of the Islamic fundamentalist attacks on US Servicepeople on American soil and abroad as actual terrorism.  It is not workplace violence, President Obama and DHS. 😛

2010 draft:

In an amazing display of the power of ideology to trump facts in federal policy-making, President Barack Obama has decided to remove references to Islamic fundamentalism from the key national security planning documents used by the military.   Of course, just a few months ago,  12 unarmed US soldiers were murdered by an evil Islamic terrorist, Major Malik Nadal Hassan.   Many noted at the time that the ideology of political correctness regarding the Muslim faith in US Army bureaucracy was a significant cause of the terrorist attack, as Hassan had literally dozens of red flags about his jihadist ways in his files yet was allowed to continue on as a US Army Major until he murdered his unarmed fellow soldiers.

What Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CN) says below will now be apparently verboten in the Age of Obama’s military planning department:

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.

“If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance,” Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

Army Chief of Staff

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.”

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.

“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.

Lieberman is going to catch a nasty email from Obama’s folks if he uses the term “Islamist” again it appears. Indeed, President Obama has decided to take the present level of political correctness in the US military, the one that was perhaps a primary cause of Hassan being able to stay undercover until he murdered the unarmed America soldiers, and jack it up to a whole new level by literally refusing to identify the enemy that is murdering US soldiers around the globe: Jihadists.  It truly defies belief, for a logical person, that Obama would go this way, at this time, especially considering the very report Obama was given about the Hassan terror attack pointed towards the refusal of Army bureaucrats to act upon red flags because of fear of being called discriminatory.

Now, as the concepts and terms related to Islamic fundamentalism and the jihadists who practice it worldwide fade into non-use in the military under Obama, the same political correctness ideology that helped murder those brave, unarmed US soldiers at Ft. Hood will push even deeper into both military and civilian federal bureaucracies.    Sadly, this type of insane wordsmithing by Obama, in service of political correctness, will not have pleasant effects upon operational units in the war on terror, as folks are even more likely to be simply watching their back for an Obama DOJ bureaucrat instead of trying to kill a jihadist who’s set on murdering Americans.

Reasonable folks can differ on whether political correctness as a whole has played a positive or negative role in the American military. However, it defies belief, in April of 2010, that the American President would change military planning policy to increase emphasis on political correctness by eliminating the identification of the primary threat to American lives, Islamic fundamentalism. Obama has continued the Bush policy of rolling Predator strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere, and even broadened its scope by approving strikes on an American citizen for the first time. At the same time, starting in his Cairo speech, Obama has been trying to sweet-talk the Muslim world, the most recent example of which is Obama’s humiliation of Israeli PM Netanyahu at the White House.

Perhaps this censoring of talk of America’s primary military threat, Islamic fundamentalism, is just another way for Obama to try to sweet-talk the Muslim world and will make little difference in light of Obama’s actions of continued and widening Predator strikes. Or maybe its purely an ideological thing, the final result of years of hard left attacks on anyone, anywhere who mentioned that the terrorists who are killing Americans are Islamic. Either way, it is poor policy from the Obama Administration to move the US military away from focusing on the primary threat to American lives, and it appears that it has only political reasons for doing so. Such conduct is inappropriate and Congress should investigate the basis for this policy decision by Obama, and attempt to reverse it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Historic Landslide For GOP Ongoing – 71+ House Seats to Switch

November 2nd, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

God Bless America and her people's voice as is being expressed today

As has been well-documented by other online journalists, both recently and during the runup to the passage of Obamacare, the Democratic Party is finally paying the ultimate price for ignoring the will of the American people today. As voting continues this afternoon, many media personalities are attempting to manipulate the American people into foregoing today’s vote, but the American public appears to have finally smartened up to the base Marxist impulses of the current leaders of the Democratic party.

One can only hope, and pray, that the historic smackdown being received by the Democrats in today’s midterm elections will teach the insiders of the Democratic party to avoid such anti-American, Marxist policy advocacy in the future. Today’s election landslide should not completely be seen as an endorsement of GOP policies, however, as both parties must now put aside their idiotic partisanship and cooperate to create the necessary business environment in America so as to allow investment money properly flow back into job-creating endeavors. All Americans, and those folks in America via legal immigration, surely are praying that the fatcat federal politicians finally are getting their wakeup call from the American voting public and act accordingly in the nation’s best interest instead of their own. Perhaps God is finally smiling down on America again with today’s election and we can once again be that shining City on the Hill, an example to the rest of the world to follow.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HILARIOUS: AMERICAN VOTERS’ CHOICE: Tea Party 48%, President Obama 44%

April 5th, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

President Barack Obama may be troubled by this morning's polling findings that 48% of American voters feel closer to the tea party's views than his own, while 44% prefer his views on issues over the tea party

In a poll that provides yet more evidence that the post-Obamacare passage environment is extraordinarily inhospitable for Democrats, Americans told pollster Rasmussen that they feel closer to the tea party than President Barack Obama in their views by a 48%-44% margin:

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

One Media Figure Behind the Fast Growth of the tea party is bond market expert and CNBC analyst Rick Santelli

To understand just how incredible this is, remember the tea party did not exist in 2008 at all, yet now holds a 4% lead over the most popular and charismatic political figure in America in decades, President Barack Obama. Apparently, the Democratic strategy to smear the tea party as racist, extremist terrorists has failed spectacularly, as noted by the tea party’s lead over President Obama reported today and even the favorable marks that the last ABC/WaPo poll showed for the tea party.

Here’s some reporting from Rasmussen this morning about whether Americans would feel closer to the tea party or unions:

Last week, Rasmussen Reports released data showing that 47% of voters felt closer to the views of Tea Party members than to Congress. Only 26% felt closer to Congress.

The new polling found that just 33% believe their views are closer to the average member of a Labor Union than to Congress. In fact, a plurality of voters were undecided when asked about that comparison. While 48% of Democrats said their own views were closer to the average union member, most Republicans and unaffiliated voters could not choose between the two.

In a head-to-head comparison, 45% felt closer to the average Tea Party Member while 35% felt closer to the average union member.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe their views are closer to the average school teacher than to Congress. Teachers scored six points higher than the Tea Party members when compared to Congress.

In a head-to-head match-up, 47% said they felt closer to the average school teacher while 41% said they felt closer to the average Tea Party member. Once again, the results betray a heavy partisan difference. Democrats prefer the school teachers, Republicans are closer to the Tea Party, and unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.

Earlier polling found that just 16% of voters nationwide consider themselves part of the Tea Party Movement. However, views of the Tea Party remain more positive than negative among voters. Just 11% believe Congress is doing a good or an excellent job.

All told, numbers such as these spell near-political doom for the Obama Administration. The main ally of the Obama Administration, big unions, is apparently disfavored by the American people right now, while the main political enemy of the Administration, the tea party, has been able to withstand a constant barrage of Democratic and establishment media criticism to remain popular with the American people. The “conventional wisdom” of the DC and media elites that passing Obamacare would strongly drive Obama and Dem popularity up has now been completely debunked, with only the sole Gallup one-day poll ever showing Obamacare as net approved and all other polls, including Gallup’s own later three-day poll, showing Obamacare actually continuing to sink in popularity after its historic passage.

The political toll that the partisan, acrimonious and essentially un-American means of passage of Obamacare takes on the “Obama Brand” and the Democrats as a whole may end up being higher than even some of Obama’s critics are now alleging, as governing against the will of the American people has apparently forced Obama and Democratic approval down towards American approval of Obamacare as a whole, and as long as Obamacare remains in the news, this dynamic appears set to continue. If the tea party can keep an edge on President Obama amongst likely voters up to and including the November 2010 election, America may see an unprecedented shift in power away from the Democrats for the 112th Congress starting in January 2011.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Billboards Against Obama” Born in Atlanta – Nationwide Next?

April 2nd, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

President Barack Obama, seen here campaigning in 2007 with convicted felon and former Detroit Democratic mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, may be troubled by the new opposition group in Atlanta know as Billboards Against Obama

A mysterious new entity opposed to the big government agenda of the Obama Administration emerged recently, posting several large billboards on Atlanta’s main highways speaking out against the Administration.  This dynamic new form of political speech, born in Atlanta, GA, may set off a new wave of political activism on both the right and left as others follow suit.   The new entity, Billboards against Obama, apparently is not in tune with Obama’s call today for Americans to tone down opposition to his policies. Local Atlanta NBC affiliate 11Alive reports:

One group is taking freedom of speech and freedom of expression to the limits in a series of Metro Atlanta highway billboards voicing strong opinions against President Barack Obama.

The billboards are the latest move to sway public opinion — and for a price you can have your say.

The signs are in a series of four digital billboards ranging in price from $2,500 to $3,500 a month. They offer pre-packaged messages like “Stop Obama Socialism,” or one that can be seen at Spaghetti Junction saying “Now it’s personal.”

The group behind the billboards call themselves BillboardsAgainstObama.com.

Two of the billboard locations are on Interstate 85; one is at Spaghetti Junction and one along Peachtree Industrial.

New Obama Opposition Group "Billboards Against Obama" Has Bought up Billboards on Major Atlanta Highways and Posted Messages Such As This

Friends of CentristNet in Atlanta tell us that Interstate 85 is one of the highest traffic highways in the city, and Spaghetti Junction is perhaps the busiest intersection in the metro Atlanta area, meaning millions of Georgians are viewing the billboards every day. Here’s the main message from the Billboards Against Obama website:

Do you love freedom? Do you love independence? Do you value the opportunity in the United States to work hard, take risks, and succeed? If the current administration completes the process they are racing to achieve, all of this will be gone! To stop the madness, we must speak out now. BILLBOARDS AGAINST OBAMA is a practical and effective way to join the battle, be seen, be heard, before it’s too late!

The messaging appears to be standard fare of the rank and file of Americans opposed to Obama’s agenda, with a focus on maintaining a capitalist, free market system where growing government does not become the predominant in the America economy and everyday life.

Obamacare clearly exemplifies this goal of the of increased federal government size and involvement in everyday life, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new federal health bureaucrats (and new IRS agents) set to be added to the already-bloated federal payrolls by 2014. Indeed, as noted by House Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the senior House Democrat and major figure in the Obamacare passage drama, between now and 2014 the government will be busying itself with the “necessary administrative steps” to bring Obamacare fully online by 2014 “to control the people” by 2014.

It appears micro-movements like Billboards Against Obama are a reaction to Obamacare and the unsettling implications of what American life would look like ion 2016 or so if Obamacare is allowed to be implemented without a rollback of some provisions, if not an outright repeal.   There is a very real possibility that America could sink into a social democratic welfare state, simliar to the many “enlightened” Western European societies that allegedly have better health care systems than America.  The signs went up just a few days ago, and so far the local media has gotten little information on the site’s owners:

11Alive News contacted the Web site owners today via e-mail and they said they would not reveal who they are or where they are based. They said they simply rely on e-mails to communicate.

So far, the nameless head of the group says their Web site has received more than 1,800 hits and that contributions that go toward paying for the billboards.

There is no indication that any one person is paying for any one display.

The group does say it’s getting some negative feedback on the Web site, but the site says the amount of money being raised to expand the program.

So far on the Web site, there are three anti-Obama messages to choose from, and contributors are given the option to create more.

CentristNet predicts that this site, and sites like it, may be the leading edge of a new form of opposition to the high spending/big government agenda of President Obama, as epitomized by his signature initiative, Obamacare. On the site, people are implored to donate small amounts to a sign of their choice in a place of their choice in the Atlanta area, and site creators promise to add a national set of choices soon:

WE’VE NEGOTIATED PACKAGE RATES ON MULTIPLE BILLBOARDS TO MOST EFFICIENTLY SPREAD THE WORD — for questions please email stopobama@billboardsagainstobama.com

OPTION A — Buy a month on a billboard
HOW TO GET STARTED:
1. Click on PICK MESSAGE to select a billboard, or create your own message at CHECKOUT.
2. Click on PICK LOCATION 1-2 or 3-4. We currently have negotiated rates on 4 metro Atlanta billboards.
3. Click on CHECKOUT to submit an advertising application. NOTE: Not a commitment to purchase.
4. We will contact you with an advertising agreement to confirm your order, subject to payment.

OPTION B — Contribute to BillboardsAgainstObama

Your contribution will go directly toward the purchase of an ad in the Metro Atlanta area (more markets coming soon).

From the time of the publication of the 11Alive article this evening just after midnight, when the site has “1,800 hits”. Now, two hours later, the site is at 2,800 hits, as the local media attention begins to move folks to the site. In the days and weeks to come, micro-movements like Billboards Against Obama and perhaps others may assume a new and unpredictable role in the national political fight between the GOP and Obama leading up to the all-important November 2010 elections.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FACE OFF: Obama 2005, 2006, 2008 Slam Obama 2010 Offshore Oil Drilling Policy

April 1st, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

Obama 2005 and Obama 2008 Appear to be Fierce Critics of Obama 2010's offshore oil drilling plan In what is one of the most explicit flip flops of the Obama Administration, President Barack Obama pushed a new offshore oil drilling policy today in a nakedly political attempt to shore up his sagging approval ratings in the wake of the historic passage of the unpopular Obamacare package.   Of course, as the establishment media cannot bring itself to ridicule Obama for his blatant hypocrisy, the Obama 2010 statements are being lauded as a genius “triangulation” move, while essentially ignoring Obama’s own 2008 words which condemn Obama 2010’s policy as “Washington” “gimmicks” that will have only a “negligible” effect on oil production after the passage of 10 years.

In a well-worn rhetorical strategy employed by the President, Obama claimed to be above the fray, the lone centrist in world of ideologues, in his remarks today, condemning those nasty partisans who “claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place“:

Obama 2010 Condemned Lefties Who Say Offshore Oil Drilling "Has No Place" In Energy Policy While Obama 2005 Claimed Offshore Oil Drilling is "Not a Solution"

Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place, because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.

Of course, here Obama 2010 is condemning himself, as Obama 2005 was one of the partisan ideologues who slammed offshore oil drilling and claimed “it has no place” in energy policy in back in 2005 as Senator Obama (D-IL):

We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn’t even make a dent in our oil dependency. We could open up ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month. Clearly, this is not a solution.

Despite Obama 2005’s clear admonition that new oil drilling in America is “not a solution”, today, Obama says that in fact, it is part of his “from hybrid fleets to offshore drilling” energy solution, while also noting today that his new offshore drilling initiative will reduce dependence on foreign oil. Ironically, Obama 2005 also condemned offshore drilling as both ineffectual overall and as taking at least 10 years to have any effect at all, as did Obama 2008:

“Much like his gas-tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has 3 percent of the world’s oil. It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil.”

And, in the irony of ironies, Obama 2008 absolutely slammed 2008 GOP Presidential candidate John McCain for “his decision to completely change his position” on offshore oil drilling:

Obama on Tuesday blasted McCain for changing his stance on offshore drilling.

“John McCain’s support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades,” he said in a written statement.

“It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil,” he said.

So, according to Obama 2008, McCain’s decision to “completely change his position” from the earlier 2000 Presidential campaign to support offshore oil drilling in the 2008 Presidential campaign was “the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades.”  Obama 2008 then again slammed Obama 2010 by saying a flip-flop on offshore oil drilling is simply “short-term political posturing from Washington” and not real leadership.  The multifaceted contradictions are enough to make Americans confused as to what exactly Obama stands for on any given policy at any given time.

No word, of course, from our vaunted American media on the massive level of explicit hypocrisy inherent in Obama’s offshore oil drilling announcement today, as he now proposes a policy he condemned as a “gimmick” in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Instead, the establishment media today is worshipping Obama 2010’s move to engage in what Obama 2008 called the “same Washington games” and “short term political posturing” to try to stop his crumbling approval ratings, calling it a “political coup” and heaping praise on the President for his explicit flip flopping:

Just days after Republicans fumed that passage of the health care bill tolled the death knell for bipartisanship, there was a very different message coming from some GOP quarters Wednesday: praise for President Barack Obama’s decision to lift the ban on some offshore oil drilling.

Credit Obama with pulling off a small political coup – one you could even call triangulation lite.

The price he paid in political terms was relatively small: Angry blowback from environmental activists who still support his overall climate change policy.

But the short-term benefits were large: By announcing the policy change, Obama defused a potentially potent Republican issue ahead of the summer gas spike and the fall midterms, while embracing major elements of the GOP’s “all of the above” energy approach to kick-start a stalled climate change bill.

And the drilling decision also allows the president to distance himself from liberal environmentalists disdained by some pro-drilling, blue-collar voters.

“It’s not a bad thing to show you’re willing to do something that gets liberals angry right after you pass the biggest liberal bill in a generation,” said a Senate Democrat staffer, whose boss opposes the policy.

MSNBC, of course, goes over the top in praising Obama 2010’s offshore drilling policy today, ignoring his prior statements which attack those who proposed increased offshore oil drilling while even going so far as to claim that Obama “has been a supporter of drilling” while forgetting about his prior, inconsistent statements from 2008 and 2005 entirely and finally focusing on the alleged “middle ground” Obama was trying to forge:

For a president on a roll following a big health care win, Wednesday’s drilling declaration was both aggressive and pragmatic. Even with a push for cleaner energy sources and efficient cars — and with promises of protection for ecosystems and coastal tourism — the nation still needs more oil, Obama said.

Obama has been a supporter of drilling as part of a broader energy agenda, and the White House played down any talk of wooing Republicans.

He implored people to accept a middle ground between viewing drilling as a cure-all or claiming it has no place in an energy portfolio.

Said the president: “This issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles.”

The Obama Brand, as built by David Axelrod and the establishment media in 2007 and 2008, is one of a “pragmatic” “post-partisan” leader who pursues centrist policies and desires to change the evil ways of “Washington”. The historically partisan passage of Obamacare over bipartisan opposition in the House and Senate by solely Democratic congresspeople, via the use of historically unparalleled levels of pork and special interest deals, conclusively debunked the media-created narrative known as the Obama Brand. However, the establishment media, as loyal Obama supporters, remain committed to attempting to avoid discussion of these facts and instead pretend that Obama is a centrist leader with cheer-leading reports such as the Politico’s (“triangulation”) and MSNBC (“middle ground”), amongst others.

This sudden Obama lurch to embrace the McCain 2008 energy policy of “drill baby drill”, on the heels of the powerfully pro-American speech to troops in a surprise trip to Afghanistan, appears clearly designed to take the focus of his unpopular Obamacare legislation and hit notes that conservatives will be attracted to.

In terms of substance, Obama’s new offshore oil drilling policies are much ado about nothing, as they do not cut back on the massive amount of red tape inherent in the present, ineffective system for allowing domestic oil exploration, and even the decision to issue a lease, let alone actually drill anything, likely won’t be made until after the next Presidential election. Indeed, Obama’s announcement today can only be seen as a naked political play at a time when his base of support is eroding in the aftermath of Obamacare.

The long term benefit of this Obama approach politically is open to question, as the two politicians most tied to advocating increased offshore drilling – Sarah Palin (“drill baby drill”) and George W. Bush – are hated with an extreme passion by many, if not most, of Obama’s remaining supporters. Ironically, this offshore oil drilling flip flop may end up cutting into Obama’s hardcore leftist base more than it builds any additional conservative or centrist support, as Greenpeace and others have absolutely slammed Obama 2010’s offshore drilling policy:

On the heels of his victory on healthcare and student aid reform, President Obama announced today that he would kowtow to the oil industry and allow exploration and drilling in 167 million acres of coastal waters that have been protected for decades.

Obama’s proposal would allow oil and gas exploration in the coastal waters of the southern Atlantic states and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, threatening fishing and tourism industries in those regions. But the news is even worse for Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, which are especially sensitive to oil drilling because they provide critical habitat for polar bears, whales, seals and other distinctive Arctic species.

Incredibly, despite dire warnings from the scientific community that we are approaching a tipping point in Earth’s climate system, Mr. Obama has set us on a course toward more dependence on fossil fuels.

The NYT shows its concern about this latest Obama move, noting that his policy will likely fail to increase domestic oil prodcution or bring over GOP support for his next massive new government initiative: cap and trade, as the NYT shows a rare inability to spin an Obama action in a positive light, concluding that “even Obama sounded somewhat conflicted“:

In proposing a major expansion of offshore oil and gas development, President Barack Obama set out to fashion a carefully balanced plan that would attract bipartisan support for climate and energy legislation while increasing production of domestic oil.

It is not clear that the plan announced Wednesday will do either.

Even Obama sounded somewhat conflicted in announcing a drilling plan that would open large tracts of the Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Arctic waters off Alaska to oil exploration and eventual drilling.

It may be that those who remained supporters of President Obama all through the grueling health care battle will peel away with revulsion at the crass political maneuvering by Obama today that pretty clearly endorses a Sarah Palin talking point that liberals incessantly ridiculed for years: “drill baby drill”. However, in the short term, Obama’s approval ratings will benefit from his conservative rhetoric on Afghanistan and offshore oil drilling.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FLASH: 23,000 American Jobs Lost in March 2010 “Unexpectedly”; UPDATE: Geithner Yesterday: America on “Verge” of “Sustained Period of Job Creation”

March 31st, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

Unemployment continues to rise in America as 23,000 American private sector jobs were lost in March 2010

Despite oft-repeated claims by many economists in the establishment media that 50,000 private  jobs would be added this month, the American private sector lost 23,000 jobs in March 2010, again throwing cold water on the Obama Administration’s repeated claims that their policies are creating jobs.   Bloomberg has the story:

Companies in the U.S. unexpectedly cut payrolls in March, according to data from a private report based on payrolls.

The 23,000 decline was the smallest in two years and followed a revised 24,000 drop the prior month, data from ADP Employer Services showed today.

Apparently America’s companies, both big business and small business, simply do not believe that the Obama economic recovery is any more than “just words” and accordingly they are not hiring:

Companies are still hesitant to add workers until they see sustained sales gains and are convinced the economic recovery has taken hold. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News anticipate the government’s report April 2 will show payrolls increased by 184,000, in part due to temporary hiring by the federal government to conduct the 2010 census and because of better weather compared with February.

“The economic recovery has not been long enough or strong enough along the way yet to produce the kind of rapid employment that people are hoping for,” Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis, which produces the figures with ADP, said in a conference call with reporters after the report.

The ADP figures were forecast to show a gain of 40,000 jobs, according to the median estimate of 35 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Projections ranged from a loss of 20,000 to a 100,000 gain.

Economists also predicted job creation in February 2010, and were wrong, but, amazingly, blamed the weather. The Obama Administration picked up on that weather excuse and has run with it for the entirety of March while claiming that March 2010 would see very substantial job creation. Now that ADP, the nation’s largest private payroll processor and premier private jobs data source, has “unexpectedly” shown yet more private job loss, it will be interesting to see what type of spin or excuse the Obama Administration creates to explain away the latest evidence of the failure of their economic policies.

Sadly, Americans can expect the Obama Administration to hail the coming Labor Department March 2010 jobs report as evidence of the success of their job creation policies, despite the fact that any gain there will be the result of the massive short-term (three month) hiring of census workers, not actual job creation:

Stock fell early Wednesday after a payroll company’s report provided a sobering reminder that the job market remains weak.

ADP said employers slashed 23,000 jobs in March. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had forecast the report would show employers added 40,000 jobs during the month.

The ADP report is seen as an early indicator of the Labor Department’s employment report due out Friday. However, there can be wide variations because ADP only accounts for private-sector jobs.

Economists expect the Labor Department’s report to show employers added 190,000 jobs in March. It would be only the second monthly increase in jobs since the recession began in late 2007. The number could be somewhat inflated because the government hired temporary workers to conduct the 2010 census.

UPDATE: Ed at Hotair points to a WSJ story also using the well-worn “unexpectedly” framing for yet another piece of evidence that private sector job creation just is not occurring. Further, just yesterday Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner claimed “sustained job creation” is here as a result of Obama policies, which today’s report of private sector job loss in March 2010 unequivocally disproves:

During an interview yesterday with CNBC, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said, “I think you can say generally that as the economy is getting stronger — and the economy is getting stronger. You know, we’re probably just on the verge now, of what we think to be a sustained period of job creation, finally.”

The Obama administration will keep up its efforts to “reinforce that recovery” and also preserve recent gains in financial stability, Geithner also said.

As it is almost certain the hundreds of thousands of three-month temporary Census worker jobs will result in an overall jobs report that shows job creation in March 2010 on Friday (the DOL release), it is clear from the ADP data today that sustainable, private sector job creation has not been spurred by 14 months of Obama economic policies, notwithstanding Obama Administration commentary from Geithner and others. Even CNBC, well-known Obama Administration cheerleaders, admits this:

ADP said employers slashed 23,000 jobs from payrolls in March, which came as a surprise to economists, who had expected to 50,000 jobs were added last month.

The ADP report is closely watched ahead of the government’s jobs report on Friday. Economists currently expect that report to show 200,000 jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls in March. And, that report could still show job growth, largely due to heavy hiring of government workers to conduct the Census.

The bottom line is that the establishment media will ignore the ADP private sector jobs report from today, and herald Friday’s DOL report as evidence that the Obama Administration jobs policies have succeeded, despite the clear evidence to contrary that only temporary Census workers will artificially push up the jobs numbers. The key question now is whether the American people, who feel the pain of continued private sector job loss every day, will buy what the Administration and establishment media are selling.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USAT/Gallup: Obama’s Disapproval hits 50% as 53% Say Dems Abused Power in Passing Obamacare

March 30th, 2010 by AHFF Geoff

President Barack Obama may end up regretting his pursuit of comprehensive health care reform as his disapproval contiues to rise along with the public's disapproval of the now-passed Obamacare

As noted by Centristnet back over the weekend, President Barack Obama continues to sink in the eyes of the American people in the wake of the historic passage of Obamacare, with a brand new USA Today/Gallup released today showing Obama’s overall job approval underwater as only 47% approve while an all-time high of 50% of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President:

Obama’s approval rating was 47%-50% — the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%.

Such elevated levels of disapproval for President Obama remind some of the net-negative approval ratings of his predecessor, George W. Bush, that consumed the Bush Presidency as public concern over the Iraqi war mounted. Indeed, Obamacare may end up being Barack Obama’s Iraq should the public’s views on Obamacare not reverse themselves in the near future. Before long, many national congressional Democrats and state-level Democrats may begin to resent the OBama Administration for saddling them with such a massive, unpopular policy in the lead-up to the November 2010 elections.

For Obama, it is the public’s concern with his massive comprehensive health care plan known as Obamacare that is driving up his disapproval and causing the number of his supporters to shrink. While USA Today and Gallup, along with the remainder of the establishment media, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs and most other Democrats did push a very shaky and perhaps misleading one-day poll last week showing Obamacare improbably at 49% approval/41% disapproval, one week later this fresh, multi-day poll shows Obamacare as unpopular as ever at 50% disapproval. Several of the criticisms of the prior one-day Gallup poll are, ironically, reprinted today by USA Today in its release of the new Gallup numbers:

The poll of 1,033 adults, taken by land line and cellphone Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/–4 percentage points.

Half call passage of the bill “a bad thing” and 47% “a good thing.” That differs from a one-day USA TODAY poll taken March 22 — a day after the House approved the legislation — in which a 49%-40% plurality called the bill “a good thing.”

“Any one-day poll in the immediate aftermath of a major event is likely to be subject not only to sampling error but also to very short-term effects,” says political scientist Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the time, “the news cycle was dominated by the positive side of the story, and only a little bit by the Republicans’ rebuttal to that.”

The undeniable problem for Obama and the Democrat is that a two-thirds majority of the American public simply does not believe their talking points on health care reform, making any increase in popularity unlikely and further declines probable:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government’s role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Those surveyed are inclined to fear that the massive legislation will increase their costs and hurt the quality of health care their families receive, although they are more positive about its impact on the nation’s health care system overall.

Finally, the coordinated campaign of Democrats and the establishment media to smear opponents of Obamacare as racist, terrorist extremists by highlighting post-Obamacare incidents of alleged violence, threats and slurs has apparently fizzled as well as 53% call Democratic tactics in ramming through Obamacare an “abuse of power” while most (49%) blame such abusive Democratic tactics as the cause of any alleged violence or threats:

There was a strong reaction against the tactics Democratic leaders used to pass the bill. A 53% majority call Democratic methods “an abuse of power;” 40% say they are appropriate.

And when asked about incidents of vandalism and threats that followed the bill’s passage, Americans are more inclined to blame Democratic political tactics than critics’ harsh rhetoric. Forty-nine percent say Democratic tactics are “a major reason” for the incidents, while 46% blame criticism by conservative commentators and 43% the criticism of Republican leaders.

As the details of the still largely-unknown Obamacare package continue to dribble out, such as the fact that the ban on insurer denials of coverage to children with preexisting conditions will not take immediately as claimed by Obama but instead 2014 and the rolling announcements of first quarter losses taken by America’s blue chip companies because of Obamacare (as epitomized by AT&T’s one billion dollar loss), it is very possible that the popularity of Obamacare will decline even further, as “continued opposition will fuel calls for repeal and dog Democrats in November’s congressional elections. The bill was enacted without a single Republican vote.”

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,