Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘State of the Union Address’

Joe Biden’s State Of The Union Previewed Dems’ Fake Attempt To Walk Back Their Culture War


REPORTED BY: EMILY JASHINSKY | MARCH 02, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/02/joe-bidens-state-of-the-union-previewed-dems-fake-attempt-to-walk-back-their-culture-war/

Joe Biden’s ”State of the Union” address clearly marked an attempt by his White House to make their culture war seem like an afterthought. It’s not, of course, as evidenced by the president’s description of abortion as “health care” and his demand that Congress pass the radical Equality Act. But the bulk of Biden’s speech focused on “meat and potatoes,” as Chris Hayes repeatedly claimed during MSNBC’s coverage.

It’s true, Biden dedicated much of his address to Ukraine, infrastructure, the economy, health care, and Covid-19. He earned a robust round of applause with a line that said, “We should all agree the answer is not to defund the police. It is to fund the police.” He touched on guns, immigration, and the environment, but they were hardly his focus. Notably, Joy Reid lamented the absence of Jan. 6 from Biden’s address, arguing it was characteristically devoid of “red meat.” Reid was right to find that balance remarkable. Rather than signaling a shift away from Democrats’ scorched-earth culture war, Biden’s speech signaled a shift away from the party’s strategy of obsessing over identity politics. This comes with an enormous caveat: Democrats cannot and will not meaningfully make any such pivot beyond rhetoric.

Until they’re willing to drop truly radical policies like the Equality Act, it’s all smoke and mirrors meant to distract voters from what they’re actually doing to the culture. Democrats cannot simply pretend the summer of 2020 and the lockdowns never happened, no matter how much the media might help them try, because the party has now spent years committing to inflated definitions of bigotry that would condemn any moderation from their positions. Sure, voters have short memories and the media is complicit. But these definitions are now baked into our institutions. They are ingrained in the minds of a generation. They’re clung to by journalists and activists that Democrats need to please.

Samuel Goldman of George Washington University disrupted the annual flood of breathless SOTU tweets with a great reminder on Tuesday night. “Guys, this speech is not for you,” he wrote. “It’s for D-leaners who disapprove of the administration and these are the lines that worked for them in focus groups. Don’t overthink it.”

That’s exactly right and it’s also why Biden’s “meat and potatoes” tone felt different. From recalls and losses like Terry McAuliffe’s to Biden’s dismal ratings to Covid missteps and brutal new polls, establishment Democrats (and even their allies in the corporate press) are worried enough about their power to start making small sacrifices in the culture war, even if they’re superficial. And they have to be superficial, because establishment Democrats have spent years emboldening the cultural left, so much that small departures from dogma are now treated as bigotry by a vocal minority of their base. While those voices may be a minority of the base, many of them are very powerful, and they can weaponize all of Democrats’ prior cultural leftism against them to level accusations of racism and sexism and all the other -isms over rhetoric alone. See this tweet Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., blasted out to her 900,000 followers after the speech.

Biden’s heavy focus on “meat and potatoes” signaled a cynical but long overdue attempt by the Democratic establishment to convince voters they’re not frenzied culture warriors. Unfortunately for Biden and his party, they are indeed frenzied culture warriors and they’re going to have a difficult time proving otherwise without alienating the radicals they’ve tried so hard to appease. It’s at least good news that voters are rejecting cultural leftism so clearly, even Beltway liberals are noticing.


Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. She’s interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including “Fox News Sunday,” “Media Buzz,” and “The McLaughlin Group.” Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Gov. Ron DeSantis rejects Biden’s request for National Guard troops to protect State of the Union speech against trucker protest


Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | February 28, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/gov-ron-desantis-rejects-biden-s-request-for-national-guard-troops-to-protect-state-of-the-union-speech-against-trucker-protest-2656812487.html/

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said that he had rejected a request from President Joe Biden to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., for his State of the Union address. Biden is scheduled to give his first State of the Union speech in Congress on Tuesday, but there is apprehension about several trucker protests headed to the nation’s capital to disrupt the event.

On Monday, DeSantis said he had rejected the president’s request for National Guard troops to help secure the peace.

“Last week, the Biden Administration requested the assistance of State National Guards to deploy to Washington D.C. I have rejected this request — there will be no [Florida National Guard] sent to D.C. for Biden’s State of the Union,” the governor tweeted.

DeSantis is seen as the foremost opponent of Biden’s policies among Republican state governors. Liberals lashed out at DeSantis over the tweet.

“Don’t be surprised if your next hurricane state of emergency call to FEMA rolls to voicemail, Ron,” tweeted Canadian comedian Deven Green.

Local and national law enforcement have ramped up the security ahead of the speech in order to head off any disruptions from protests. U.S. Capitol Police said that they would erect a security fence around Congress and close some streets in the surrounding areas.

At least three trucker convoys are expected to converge at the nation’s capitol to show their disdain for Biden and his policies, especially those related to vaccine and mask mandates. One of the larger convoys launched from the Mojave Desert in California on a cross-country route last week.

One Democrat called on law enforcement authorities to seize the trucks from any protest and “give the trucks to small trucking companies looking to expand their business.”

Critics of modern State of the Union speeches note that historically the address was a simple letter sent by the president to Congress. It was converted by Woodrow Wilson into an ostentatious ceremony for the sake of raising the profile of the executive branch.

Here’s more about the State of the Union address:

Security heightened ahead of Biden’s 1st State of The Union | GMA www.youtube.com

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday, January 29, 2018


Opinion: Obama’s Dangerous Terrorism Delusion


waving flagOpinion/Commentary by Jamie Weinstein, Senior Editor, 01/13/2016

President Barack Obama views the threat posed by Islamist terrorism in a dangerously stupid way.

The day before Obama’s State of the Union address, New York Times reporter Peter Baker gave some insight into the way Obama thinks about the terrorism threat.

“Here is what he probably will not say, at least not this bluntly: Americans are more likely to die in a car crash, drown in a bathtub or be struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist,” Baker wrote. “The news media is complicit in inflating the sense of danger. The Islamic State does not pose an existential threat to the United States. “

Baker, one of the most connected reporters in Washington, likely got that insight into Obama’s thinking from those close to the president, if not from a background briefing by President Obama himself. True to Baker’s prediction, Obama did not lay out his view of the terrorism threat as bluntly in the State of the Union, but he did dance around the theme.

muslim-obama“But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands,” the president said during a speech he promised wouldn’t be long, but clocked in at just under an hour. “Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. “dangerously delisional

This type of thinking about terrorism is not new. You can find proponents of the “lightening is more dangerous than terrorism” school of thought on both the libertarian right and the Barack Obama left. In November, Princeton Professor Andrew Shaver wrote an article in The Washington Post provocatively entitled, You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist.”

“But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West,” Shaver declared.definetly

“Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture,” he went on.

The only problem with this way of thinking is my desk chair isn’t part of an international conspiracy actively trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction in order to inflict a mass casualty attack on American soil. And the United States government doesn’t have to spend billions of dollars a year in order to ensure the death toll from lightening strikes doesn’t drastically increase.against America

Yes, we are fortunate that successful terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 have so far been relatively rare and have killed far fewer people collectively than various other threats we never even think about. But Islamist terrorists are actively planning and plotting to increase the numbers of American infidels they kill, and are seeking the deadliest weapons to inflict such carnage. My armoire is not.

This type of thinking has consequences. If you view the terrorism threat the same way you view the bathtub drowning threat, you’re probably not taking the risk of Islamist terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction as seriously as you should. It’s the type of delusional way of looking the world that might make a president mistake the most sophisticated terror group in human history for a “J.V. team” — or a nation who captures American sailors and humiliates them on national television as a country who will uphold its end of a nuclear treaty.

America are you really paying attention RAPE American women respond In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Fact Check: Top 10 Lies in Obama’s State of the Union


waving flagby Joel B. Pollak 12 Jan 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/12/fact-check-state-of-the-union-2016

1. “[W]e’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.” This is pure fiction. Obama has doubled the national debt, and it’s not because he cut the deficit. Rather, he spent staggering amounts of money in his first months in office–which he assigns, dishonestly, to the previous fiscal year, under George W. Bush. He “cut” (i.e. spent more gradually) from that spending, but only under protest, after Republicans took the House in 2010.

(Update: It is true that Obama’s 2015 budget deficit was about 25% of his 2010 deficit. But he referred to “deficits,” plural. Until last year, all of Obama’s deficits were worse than all of Bush’s deficits except for the last two.)

2. “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.” With that line, Obama took a shot at his would-be Democratic successors, as well as his Republican critics. But the truth is that despite the slow recovery–the slowest since World War II–labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Wages are stagnant, household incomes still have not recovered from the recession, and young people see a bleak future.

3. “That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. ”That is a cruel joke, given that Obamacare canceled insurance coverage for millions of Americans who did not change jobs. It also raised deductibles and premiums so high that many insurance companies are leaving the Obama exchanges totally.Complete Message

4. “Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.” Actually, food stamp recipients, metaphorically speaking, were indirectly responsible–as well as Wall Street sharks. Obama leaves out the government’s role, under the Community Reinvestment Act, in pushing mortgages on people who could not afford them, and in backing the derivatives based on those mortgages that ultimately burst the whole bubble.

5. “We’ve protected an open internet…”. Obama’s policy of Net Neutrality has turned Internet service providers into public utilities under an ancient regulatory regime. The result has been a sharp decline in broadband investment and a much less free and open system. In addition, the Obama administration is rushing to shift control of ICANN to the international community, which will ensure that the Internet is less free, and subject to overseas censorship.

6. “Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results.” It is laughable that Obama would claim his failed clean energy spending–think Solyndra–led to the fracking-fed energy boom we have enjoyed for the past several years, especially when the administration did all it could to stop oil and gas development. He also nixed the Keystone pipeline and started a plan to kill coal plants.

7. “No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” Of all the lies in Obama’s speech, this was undoubtedly the worst, coming hours after Iran seized two U.S. Navy boats and ten sailors. Obama did not even mention those Americans in captivity at any point in his speech, declining the chance to reassure the nation that they would come home safely. It is an omission that will define this address in history.

8. “As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time.” Obama does not attend most of his daily intelligence briefings, preferring instead to read intelligence reports–so he claims–on his iPad, a stark contrast to the attentive approach of his predecessor. Late last year, even as Obama claimed that there was little risk from attack, radical Islamic terrorists carried out brutal attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino.

9. “We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria [from Islamic State].” The Obama administration’s attempt to train and arm Syrian rebels has been a disaster. Belatedly, the administration has helped Kurdish peshmerga forces, and the Iraqi military has made gains lately, but Obama has not made a serious effort to defeat the Islamic State, and is even giving up on regime change in Syria.

10. “Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America.” And a year of appeasement has not promoted democracy, either. The Castros remain firmly in power, and we are not helping the opposition. Worse, the Cuban regime continues to arrest thousands of political dissidents, to cozy up to enemies like Iran and North Korea, and to carry out provocative acts–such as stealing a U.S. Hellfire missile.

Towards the end of his speech, Obama told one important truth: “There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide…”.

An unusual, but overdue, admission of guilt.

Indenification of Obama tyrants B2A_FvyCMAE14px In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama Thinks SCIENCE Is On His Side Against Guns, This New Article DESTROYS That


waving flagWritten by Thomas Holmes on January 13, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/01/obama-thinks-science-is-on-his-side-against-guns-this-new-article-destroys-that

After you’ve suffered through President Obama’s final State of the Union address, and watch as he “spontaneously” goes all Boehner on us, bursting into tears and pointing to an empty chair to signify all the victims of guns, remember his definition of “verified science” and is different than the rest of reality’s.

It also might help to review Reason magazine senior editor, Brian Doherty’s balanced and informative editorial on the limitations of statistical science’s analysis of gun ownership and crime. Go ahead and forward the article to your liberal friends too on the off chance it will give them pause before they starting pleading for President Obama to give the children a second Christmas and launch every firearm in existence into the sun.

Mr. Doherty thoroughly examines a number of the most inflammatory studies and surveys from both the right and the left and comes to a number of critical conclusions:

  • Policy makers are ready to make policy based on whichever study they like the most, not whichever one necessarily holds up to the scientific method. “What we really know about the costs and benefits of private gun ownership and the efficacy of gun laws is far more fragile than what…the president would have us believe,” writes Doherty.

“The facts then become even more muddled as the conclusions of those less-than-ironclad academic studies cycle through the press and social media in a massive game of telephone.” Doherty touches on an incredibly crucial point that demonstrate how many scientists, journalists and politicians see true value less in the robustness of the analysis but “win” in the headline.

Later in the piece Doherty refers to a Pew study that showed that 56% of those polled thought gun homicide was increasing even though it had actually been going down for years, suggesting that a convincing narrative and a passive public beats the truth every time.

  • Some scientists seem willing and able to massage their standards if it means serving what they perceive as the greater good of public safety. Yes, a number of the organizations Doherty references including the Centers for Disease Control- because apparently now gun ownership is officially a “disease”- seem to start out with the objective notion that gun ownership is dangerous and must be proven to be valid.

Doherty writes that Harvard gun violence researcher, David Hemenway “believes, given the good he thinks can come from legal interventions about guns, that we don’t need to be that certain we are right for policy work.” Other anti-gun researchers come to similar conclusions, according to Doherty. They suggest that just because an analysis might not conclude that guns aren’t too violent for statistics doesn’t mean that science should punish the real world by letting things carry on as they are.

Again with that convenient greater good.

Arguably, Mr. Doherty’s greatest conclusion is that current levels of social scientific study are incapable of providing any definitive empirical conclusion on the causality of gun ownership and gun crimes. The number and depth of variables make it basically impossible to truly know, especially when taking into account the intensive political and social heat around the topic.

What is equally true but significantly more disturbing is just how much President Obama will DID ignore that reality during the State of the Union and declare the subject decided.

Hey Leftist Disarmed Citizenry In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Watch for this Phrase in Tonights State of the Union Address: “Income Inequality”


Income Inequality claims: Wrong-Headed Liberalism

Written on Monday, January 27, 2014 by

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/income-inequality-claims-wrong-headed-liberalism/#k1uORuFeMOBzxdfh.99

Hurting from the implosion of Obamacare and the revelation that its namesake lied to the American people about his misnamed Affordable Care Act, liberals running for office have been forced to find another song to sing.  Not surprisingly, they have found one: income inequality.  Income inequality has become mantra for progressive politicians who are concerned about the effect Obamacare will have on their re-elections.  Ask a progressive politician about President Obama’s you-can-keep-your-doctor promise, and you will get an earful about income inequality.  Show a progressive politician your cancelled health insurance policy, and you will hear a lecture on income inequality.  Give a progressive politician a copy of the notice of increased premiums you just received from your insurance company, and you will be treated to a dissertation on income inequality.  Liberals have decided to confront their Obamacare problem by changing the subject.  The new subject they plan to focus on is income inequality.

The problem with all of this talk about income inequality—aside from the fact that it’s a smokescreen thrown up to divert attention from the failings of Obamacare—is that it’s founded on invalid assumptions.  With income inequality, we are not talking primarily about inherited wealth.  Rather, we are talking about the amount of the world’s wealth that is controlled by the top one percent of wealthy people.  The invalid assumptions that progressives base their income-inequality diatribes on are these: 1) That all work is equally valuable in the marketplace,  2) That those who earn less are somehow being discriminated against, which is why they earn less, and 3) That it is unfair for one individual to earn a lot of money while another earns comparatively little.  All of these assumptions are demonstrably false, and liberals know it.  Of course since stoking the fires of class envy is their goal, it matters not a whit that their assumptions are false, at least not to liberals.

In a free society with a market economy, the people who have the most money will always be those who are able to provide a product or service people want and are willing to pay for.  Consequently, the level of income one earns and the amount of wealth one generates is based primarily on supply and demand.  If an individual enters a profession for which demand is strong and supply is limited, he will earn more than someone who enters a field for which demand is weak and supply is plentiful.  Hence, individuals who work as high-level computer engineers—the kind of professionals employed by Microsoft for example—earn more than individuals who work the counter at a fast-food restaurant.  Is this wrong?  Hardly.  Why is it not wrong?  Because people want computers and the associated devices and software that go with them and they are willing to pay to get them.  Further, to become a computer engineer one must have the innate mental capacity to do the work, the perseverance to complete a rigorous course of college study, and the persistence to keep one skills constantly updated and on the cutting edge of computer technology. These things are not true of people who work the counter at fast-food restaurants.

To work the counter at a fast food restaurant requires little more than the mental capacity, education, and persistence associated with a sixth grader, if that.  Because of the supply-and-demand equation, it is difficult for employers such as Microsoft to find and keep qualified computer engineers.  Hence the market demands that they pay a competitive salary that is enhanced by good benefits and attractive perquisites.  On the other hand, almost any person can quickly learn everything necessary to work at a fast-food restaurant.  Consequently, there is seldom a shortage of individuals seeking employment at fast food restaurants.  In this case, the supply is typically high and demand is typically low.  Consequently, the pay is correspondingly low.  This is not unfair, as progressives try to portray it.  In fact, it is inherently fair.  The market usually is.  What is unfair is when progressive politicians with a hidden agenda try to manipulate public opinion by encouraging class envy.  And, of course, this is precisely what the left is doing with its new campaign for income equality.

While it is true that the hand of God is certainly a factor in determining who is born with the innate ability to become a computer engineer as opposed to a fast-food worker, it is also true that success in the workplace is based on much more than innate ability.  It would be hard to count the number of people with innate ability whose earning potential is limited by such factors as laziness, bad educational choices, sloppy career planning, and a poor work ethic.  Perhaps one might argue that it is inherently unfair that one individual would have the innate ability to become a computer programmer, but that is a conservation to have with God not your local Congressman.

Democrats scramble to block ‘New World Order’


Obama wants to ‘fast track’ job-killing, sovereignty-threatening plan

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/democrats-scramble-to-block-new-world-order/#ecmlL6tgbOIBDzBL.99

Published: 21 hours ago

author-image Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is  “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

NEW YORK – As President Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, powerful groups in the Democratic Party base are organizing to oppose “fast track” authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping free-trade agreement the Obama administration is ready to push through Congress.

“President Obama can’t have it both ways,” Arthur Stamoulis, the spokesman for Citizens Trade Campaign, the group organizing the letter, told WND. “Either the president is for reducing income eligibility as we expect he will say in the State of the Union address, or he can push for fast-track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement. He can’t have it both ways.”

Jerome Corsi’s “Late Great USA” uncovers government deceptions that threaten U.S. sovereignty

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The aim is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

As WND reported, Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

“Fast-track” authority would allow the Obama administration to ram the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the power of the punch the Citizens Trade Campaign plans to deliver the White House can be seen by the letter’s signatories.

They include labor unions such as the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Autoworkers (UAW); United Brotherhood of Carpenters; United Steelworkers (USW); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Among the environmental organizations are 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club.

Family farm organizations include the National Family Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Consumer groups include Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, National Consumers League and Public Citizen.

“Income inequality and long-term unemployment are serious problems that the job-killing TPP would only worsen,” Stamoulis said.

He said calling for fast-track authority in the State of the Union address Tuesday night “would undercut positive proposals to battle growing income inequality and create middle class jobs which are expected to be the central focus of the president’s speech.”

“As short-sighted as such a call would be, even more short-sighted would be for Congress members on either side of the aisle to answer it, as they’re the ones who would be dealing with the political repercussions this November,” Stamoulis said.

On Wednesday, another group opposed to TPP, the U.S. Business & Industry Council, plans to deliver the second punch in the one-two punch act by following up the State of the Union address with a national press conference revealing the results of a bipartisan national poll on TPP.

In an unusual move, two pollsters that usually do not work together, Democratic pollster Gary Molyneux of Hart Research and Republican pollster Bob Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, have collaborated to take the poll and report the results.

While Eden Gorden, spokeswoman for the U.S. Business & Industry Council, would not say in advance precisely what the poll results will show, it’s likely that the majority of responders would oppose the TPP as a job-killing measure. Critics charge the Obama administration negotiated it in secret and is now trying to rush it through Congress before the American public finds out how the trade measure compromises U.S. sovereignty.

On Jan. 14, WND reported Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing “fast track” trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade “fast track” steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

Last year, 151 House Democrats, led by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., opposed to TPP wrote a letter to President Obama stating their opposition to using “outdated ‘Fast Track’ procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters.”

With Boehner’s decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

As WND has reported, “fast track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority also has the function of reassuring foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama declared that to “boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

“And tonight,” he said, “I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns that previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs to nations with less expensive job markets.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

Noonan: The Sleepiness of a Hollow Legend


The State of the Union is a grand tradition—but only if people are listening.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303947904579339142225570548

By
Peggy Noonan
Jan. 23, 2014 6:16 p.m. ET
 

So the president’s State of the Union address is Tuesday night, and it’s always such a promising moment, a chance to wake everyone up and say “This I believe” and “Here we stand.” The networks are focused and alert, waiting to be filled with a president’s excellence and depth. It’s a chance for the American president to say whatever the storm, however high the seas, the union stands “rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible.” That’s how Stephen Vincent Benet had Daniel Webster put it, in a play.

In a State of the Union a president tries to put his stamp on things. Here we are, here’s where we’re going, all roads lead forward. We can face whatever test, meet whatever challenge, united in the desire that we be the greatest nation in the history of man . . .

What great moments this tradition has given us. JFK’s father thought his son’s first State of the Union was better than his Inaugural Address. It had a warmth. “Mr. Speaker . . . it is a pleasure to return from whence I came. You are among my oldest friends in Washington—and this House is my oldest home.” Friends, home—another era. LBJ taking the reins in 1964: “Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined.” And you know, that’s what it became. Nixon enjoyed dilating on history, and was interesting when he did.

Reagan dazzled, though he told his diary he never got used to it: “I’ve made a mil. speeches in every kind of place to every kind of audience. Somehow there’s a thing about entering that chamber—goose bumps & a quiver.” There was his speech after he’d recovered from being shot—brio and gallantry. And of course Lenny Skutnik. Just before Reagan’s 1982 speech Mr. Skutnik, a government worker, saw Air Florida Flight 90 go into the Potomac. As others watched from the banks of the frozen river, Mr. Skutnik threw off his coat, dived in and swam like a golden retriever to save passengers. The night of the speech he was up there in the gallery next to the first lady, and when Reagan pointed him out the chamber exploded. This nice, quiet man who’d gone uncelebrated all his professional life, and then one day circumstances came together and he showed that beneath the bureaucrat’s clothing was the beating heart of a hero.

***

Well. History still beckons, waiting to be made. The great unstated question of today: Can America come back, reclaim her old spirit, confidence and joy, can we make things again, build them, grow, create, push out into the new?

And here I think: Oh dear.

Because when I imagine Barack Obama’s State of the Union, I see a handsome, dignified man standing at the podium and behind him Joe Biden, sleeping. And next to him John Boehner, snoring. And arrayed before the president the members, napping.

No one’s really listening to the president now. He has been for five years a nonstop wind-up talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses. I see him enjoying the sound of his voice as the network newsman leans forward eagerly, intently, nodding at the pearls, enacting interest, for this is the president and he is the anchorman and surely something important is being said with two such important men engaged.

But nothing interesting was being said! Looking back on this presidency, it has from the beginning been a 17,000 word New Yorker piece in which, calmly, sonorously, with his lovely intelligent voice, the president says nothing, or little that is helpful, insightful or believable. “I’m not a particularly ideological person.” “It’s hard to anticipate events over the next three years.” “I don’t really even need George Kennan right now.” “I am comfortable with complexity.” “Our capacity to do some good . . . is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention.”

Nobody is!

He gave a speech on the National Security Agency, that bitterly contested issue, the other day. Pew Research found half of those polled didn’t notice. National Journal’s Dustin Volz wrote that Americans greeted the speech with “collective indifference and broad skepticism.” Of the 1 in 10 who’d followed it, more than 70% doubted his proposals would help protect privacy.

The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact. People now know it was badly thought, badly written and disastrously executed. It was supposed to make life better by expanding coverage. It has made it worse, by throwing people off coverage. And—as we all know now but did not last year—the program was passed only with the aid of a giant lie. Now everyone knows if you liked your plan, your doctor, your deductible, you can’t keep them.

When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won’t listen to you anymore.

The poor speechwriters. They are always just a little more in touch with public sentiment than a president can be—they get to move around in the world, they know what people are saying. They have to imitate the optimism of the speeches of yore, they have to rouse. They are the ones who know what a heavy freaking lift it is, what an impossible chore. And they have to do it with idiots in the staffing process scrawling on the margins of the draft: “More applause lines!” The speechwriters know the answer is fewer applause lines, more thought, more humility and candor. Americans aren’t impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. “Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm” is what they look like they’re thinking. While the other party thinks “Now we have to get up too, because what he said was anodyne and patriotic and we can’t not stand up for that.” And they applaud, diffidently, because they don’t want the folks back home—the few who are watching—to say they looked a little too enthusiastic about the guy who just cost them their insurance.

They are all enacting. They are all replicating. They’re all imitating the past.

You know when we will know America is starting to come back? When some day the sergeant at arms bellows: “Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States” and the camera shows a bubble of suits and one person emerges from the pack and walks into the chamber and you’re watching at home and you find yourself—against everything you know, against all the accumulated knowledge of the past—interested. It’ll take you aback when you realize you’re interested in what he’ll say! And the members won’t just be enacting, they’ll be leaning forward to hear.

And the president will speak, and what he says will be pertinent to the problems of the United States of America. And thoughtful. And he’ll offer ideas, and you’ll think: “Hey, that sounds right.”

That is when you’ll know America just might come back.

Until then, as John Dickerson just put it: Barack Obama, Inaction Figure.

Zzzzzzz.

Obama Plans to Sidestep Congress on Jobs Agenda with Executive Actions


More evidence that President Obama believes himself to be a King who can just;

  • order people to do whatever he wants,

  • enforce the laws he likes,

  • or change the laws he does not like,

  • issue an executive order to bypass the Congress and the Constitution he swore to uphold,

  • ignore the restrictions the Constitution puts on the Presidency.

President Obama has surrounded himself with other Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist who think like him, and therefore, encourage his law-breaking conduct. The following article exposes more of these “self-attributed” efforts.

Jerry Broussard (MrB)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

WWW.NEWSMAX.COM

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Economy/2014/01/14/id/546948

Ready to put an economic spotlight on his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and making a case that, even against a divided Congress, he can still be relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.

With two weeks left before his message to a joint session of Congress, Obama is showcasing how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.

On Tuesday, Obama is meeting with his Cabinet to discuss measures that can help the middle class. On Wednesday he will go to North Carolina to draw attention to industry steps to increase high-tech manufacturing. On Thursday he has invited college presidents to discuss ways to improve workers’ skills. Later this month, he is convening CEOs at the White House to lay out plans for hiring the long-term unemployed.

“The president will use every tool he can to create new jobs and opportunities for the middle class,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer writes in an email to be sent Tuesday morning to the White House list of supporters. “He will be looking for areas of bipartisan cooperation, but he won’t be waiting on Congress to act.”

The approach has strong echoes of Obama’s 2012 “We can’t wait” campaign that sought to depict Obama as an impatient executive in the face of inaction from Congress, particularly the Republican-controlled House.

Obama’s reliance on his executive powers and his bully pulpit — at the White House it’s called his “pen-and-phone” strategy — illustrates the means at his disposal but also highlights the limits of his ability to work with Congress.

Only through legislation can Obama obtain some of the most ambitious items on his economic agenda — from a higher minimum wage to universal preschool to an overhaul of immigration laws, three items in his 2013 State of the Union that will make a return appearance in this year’s address.

That means that as long as Republicans in Congress are unreceptive to his legislative priorities, he will have to settle for more incremental and narrower solutions that don’t necessarily have the staying power and the force of law.

Last week, Obama announced that five communities had been designated as “promise zones,” fulfilling a goal he set out in his 2013 State of the Union speech. Last year, Obama also announced that he intended to launch three manufacturing hubs where businesses would work to create centers of high-tech jobs by working in partnership with the Energy and Defense departments. But in an example of his limitations, he also called on Congress to create 15 more similar hubs, a request that went unanswered.

Obama’s determination to use the power of executive orders and administrative actions as well as his decision to convene key figures from private enterprise, education and other interest groups to help advance his agenda also underscore some of the built-in powers of the presidency. Clinton-era White House chief of staff John Podesta, who is joining the White House as a senior adviser, has long pressed Obama to use his executive authority to get around congressional opposition.

Podesta co-authored a report in 2010 for the liberal Center for American Progress that was essentially a treatise on presidential authority. It argued that both presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had enacted aspects of their agendas even in the face of a divided Congress.

“The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still,” Podesta wrote. “This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible.”

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Economy/2014/01/14/id/546948#ixzz2qPrKJPI7 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: