posted April 30, 2011 12:48 PM            

So, is Barack Hussein O'Bomber a sick, sick, sick man? Yes he is, Yes he is, Yes he is!

So, what is President Sicko doing now?

Well, he's threatening a newspaper with loss of their WH press credentials to cover pool events.

So, what was the San Francisco Chronicle's crime?

They posted some video of protesters at an O'Bomber fundraising event in San Francisco.

Wow, we know everyone loves The One, The Messiah O'Bomber. Can't let any discouraging words or pictures impinge on the O'Bomber Love-Fest...now could we.

President Sicko is pure, unadulterated 99/100ths percent narcissist....who never heard of the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of the press. I guess President Sicko doesn't think that applies to him!

SF Chronicle video prompts White House threat
By Carolyn Lochhead - San Francsico Chronicle | Published: 6:55 AM 04/29/2011

(04-29) 04:00 PDT Washington --

The White House threatened Thursday to exclude The San Francisco Chronicle from pooled coverage of its events in the Bay Area after the paper posted a video of a protest at a San Francisco fundraiser for President Obama last week, Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee said. White House guidelines governing press coverage of such events are too restrictive, Bushee said, and the newspaper was within its rights to film the protest and post the video.

The White House press office would not speak on the record about the issue.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/29/sf-chronicle-video-prompts-white-house-threat/

posted May 01, 2011 08:24 AM            

I can be almost certain these protesters are demoscats. They want Bradley Manning released...the military guy who gave WikiLeaks all those files.

President Sicko couldn't stand 10 minutes of the press abuse and lies heaped upon George W Bush for 8 years...or the lies the left's orchestrated protesters told about him.

If the American press had done their job in the first place and vetted O'Bomber as they have other candidates, President Sicko would never have been elected.

posted May 01, 2011 01:00 PM            

Or, does that truism only apply when there's a Republican President?

Or, perhaps some don't know that the White House Communications staff works for O'Bomber and were chosen for their positions....by O'Bomber.

posted May 01, 2011 06:42 PM              

you may be right, but on the other hand it may be that some things are assumed by his staff...APPARENTLY the man spends 26 hours a day approving and disapproving every sneeze and whisper. surely he has a huge workload but i'd bet anything that some things are not passed by him. ever had employees?

not condoning censorship but i do like to see facts checked a little more carefully before judgement is passed on them.

Late today, there were hints that the White House might be backing off the Carla Fatwa

Read more: [URL=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1L8zth5YP]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1L8zth5YP[/b][/UR L] [/b]

so apparently they are rethinking this situation.

unlike the radio lady from florida who, being one of his constituents, was thrown in jail for over 24 hours and maced there because she asked challenging questions at congressman west's town hall meeting..

posted May 01, 2011 10:29 PM            

First, the O'Bomber staff tried to lie their way out of the mess they made and now...if your report is to be believed, they're rethinking the whole thing.

"unlike the radio lady from florida who, being one of his constituents, was thrown in jail for over 24 hours and maced there because she asked challenging questions at congressman west's town hall meeting.."

First, I've seen the video. This loony leftist woman wasn't asking questions, she was attempting to disrupt the town hall meeting.

Second, she resisted arrest. I didn't see any mace.

There sure is a big difference between O'Bomber loons whose goal is to shut down town hall meetings and not permit elected officials speak to their constitutents and the peaceful protests by tea party members.

posted May 02, 2011 09:43 AM            

The San Francisco Chronicle has accused the White House of lying about a recent spat with one of its reporters. Last week, the Chronicle reported that the White House had threatened to ban Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci from participating in the White House pool after Marinucci, a member of the print pool, used her cell phone to record a group of Bradley Manning supporters heckling Pres. Obama at a recent San Francisco fundraiser.

According to the Chronicle’s first write-up of the spat, the White House press office threatened to ban Marinucci from the print pool during San Francisco events for using her cell phone, and forbade the paper from discussing the incident. A day later, the White House told reporters that the Chronicle’s allegations were “not true.”

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee wasted no time hitting back at the White House.

“Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday,” Bushee wrote on Saturday. “It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.”

Bushee added that the Chronicle is requesting an on-the-record confirmation that Marinucci is still eligible for pool duty during Obama’s trips to San Francisco.

The fight with the Chronicle comes roughly a month after a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel was asked to wait in a closet during a Winter Park fundraiser for Vice Pres. Joe Biden.

This isn’t the Obama White House’s first boondoggle with press access. In October 2009, just days after Robert Gibbs told ABC’s Jake Tapper that the White House would not pick and choose who could have access to administration officials, FOX News’ Major Garrett was denied permission to interview Obama Jobs Czar Kenneth Feinberg.

posted May 02, 2011 10:58 AM              

funny, when you think i found the info it is not to be believed...or at the very least SUSPECT.

also funny, i took that directly from YOUR link...apparently you didn't read the whole thing?

as to the "OBOMBER" crazy lady, she is one of west's constituents who does not like his MO or the things he says, nor plans he would like to see in place in her home environment. "heckling" is a very subjective word...perhaps she was trying to be heard? i didn't see the video but i wonder if you watched the whole thing or just a part of it, like the article you posted? or was it another heavily editted clip from youtube aimed at making a point?

posted June 01, 2011 12:39 PM            

As part of the mainstream media's ongoing effort to sway and distort American thinking, liberal "analysts" for decades continually have conveyed the impression that ideological liberals are just-plain-smarter than mortal humans while conservatives -- even the good ones like the RINOs -- just are not all that smart, and in fact are stupid. Thus, Ronald Reagan was a moron, an actor who shared a bed with a monkey in "Bedtime for Bonzo." George H.W. Bush, despite having achieved extraordinary results during Operation Desert Storm, was no intellectual match for the Clintonites who derisively mocked: "It's the economy, stupid."

You could not call Richard Nixon "stupid," so he instead was "tricky." (By contrast, the mainstream media did not label Bill Clinton as "tricky" even when he tried evading questions based on "what is, is.") The media depicted President Gerald Ford, a graduate of the University of Michigan and a star athlete, as a bumbling oaf. George W. Bush was another dope -- he could not even pronounce "nuclear" the way they do on the East Coast.

By contrast, John F. Kennedy was a Harvard scholar, surrounded by the "best and the brightest." Jimmy Carter was the hardest working of Presidents, whose brilliance enabled him to grasp every detail of governance. Bill Clinton, a Yale Law School graduate, also had been a Rhodes Scholar, again one of our most brilliant Presidents, albeit disbarred ultimately from practicing law before the Supreme Court. And Barack Obama -- well, a graduate of Columbia University's undergraduate school, of Harvard Law School, editor-in-chief ("president") of the Harvard Law Review, a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School. A genius, with brains to spare.

Even the losers get treated according to the media script. Barry Goldwater was a crazy man, set on launching a nuclear holocaust. Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, on the other hand, were brilliant and brillianter. Al Gore was brilliantest. Meanwhile, Bob Dole tripped off a stage, evoking the Gerald Ford myth. And John McCain? Poor guy can't count the number of houses he owns, while his pig-with-lipstick running mate cannot name a newspaper or a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. As if, for example, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, governed the state with nothing to do but watch the Real Housewives of MSNBC, never reading a newspaper, never hearing of a Supreme Court case.

So it is time to say it: Stop it already. We know that Barack Obama has unique gifts that elude many of us. For example, he manifestly avoids holding banister rails when he descends steps at airports because, unlike Republicans Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, he never slips. We are very impressed, those of us who keep our hands near the banister just in case. We know that he is professorial, says "uh" when thinking, drinks beer with professors. We are very impressed.

We would be more impressed if our transparent President would allow us to see his transcript from Columbia University and share with us how he managed to finance his education there. Or if he would allow us to read his senior thesis. Or allow us to see his transcript from Harvard Law School. Yes, we know he rose to be the president of Law Review, but there is a question that nags on that one, too:

I was Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review and later had the honor of clerking for the Hon. Danny Julian Boggs of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, one of the nation's most brilliant jurists, who later rose to become Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit. To be selected as Chief Articles Editor, I had to research and write the Law Review Comment of a lifetime. In time, it was published and deemed good enough that I was named law review chief articles editor. In the years that followed, that Law Review Comment has been cited by federal courts in at least seven published judicial opinions, and in several other unpublished opinions. It has been cited and quoted often in other people's legal scholarship.

And that is "how it works." To be a law review editor-in-chief, a Chief Articles Editor, a Chief Comments Editor of a law review, it is a sine qua non that you publish something fabulous, a real scholarly piece of work. Many dozens of America's finest law students do exactly that every year. Those articles later become part of a vast searchable electronic library of legal scholarship.

The thing is, I cannot find Barack Obama's great piece of work, the scholarship one would presume he researched, drafted, crafted, and honed, that earned him the presidency of the Harvard Law Review. The name "Obama" is the kind of search term that should do the job. But I cannot find any scholarship published by him that reveals the exceptional brilliance that paved the way to his achievement. So there is no published scholarship that refutes the increasing sense so many of us share that we Americans elected a President who maybe is not so smart as the media's campaign hype suggested. Perhaps even a rube. Just as we have been chastened by the Mississippi floods and the Midwestern tornadoes that challenge his power as a "god" to declare the moment when "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Think back to his press conference when, recklessly venturing beyond range of a teleprompter, he described his campaign efforts through the 57 states. If Dan Quayle had said that, people would have thrown potatoes at him. With Obama, though, we are told it was a slip of the tongue. When he could not properly pronounce the military term "corpsman," pronouncing it instead as one would describe a cadaver, the late-night comics did not perceive humor.

When he recently bungled our Mideast policy in the face of the "Arab Spring," where the international Arab street has been screaming that their lives' real concern today is not Zionism but the tyranny, repression, and corruption perpetrated by their dictators, his supporters in the mainstream press praised his brilliant ideas nonetheless. And when the professor soon thereafter had to sit through the first intelligent lecture he had heard since he left school, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's thoughtful exposition on Mideast reality, Obama barely could move, planting and gluing his fist firmly in his face, practically gripping the wood off his chair like Captain Kirk during a Klingon attack.

I have long sensed that Prof. Obama never got a fair deal from his critics, who kept asking how he could have sat silently for twenty years through the hate-filled anti-American sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I always have assumed the true answer is: he did not realize because he almost-never attended church. Of course no politician can say that to American voters, so Obama was caught in a quandary, ultimately throwing the reverend under the bus, then his grandmother as a racist.

Few of us have publicly lambasted our closest relatives, particularly those who reared us, just to win friends or to make a point. Perhaps we would do so if only we were smarter. Uh...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/stop_it_already_--_hes_not_so_smart.html

posted June 01, 2011 02:13 PM              

as to his grandmother, i actually read the passage referred to. obama, like many others, recognized the fact that his grandparents came from a pretty homogenously WHITE environment which held coloured people in suspicion like a lot of other things they know nothing about.

he did not condemn them for being products of their upbringing and environment. just NOTICED that in general they were UNCONSCIOUSLY racist. this is a category many whites pretend does not exist, but over the years i have found this dynamic in myself and other people who are CONSCIOUSLY ANTI-RACIST...due to lack of exposure when young, perhaps, or lack of everyday knowledge of the extent to which blacks were isolated from white society in the past.

and i grew up with black people in the house! my father was a musician and actor among other things and had black friends. but there was a lot of equal-but-separate stuff going on then, in cosmopolitan new york area. in kansas? a friend of mine who is half blackfoot and grew up in the mainstream community went to kansas to college and couldn't believe the degree of (unconscious) racism he met there.

it happens, jwhop. obama wasn't criticizing his grandparents, but admitting that before he came into their life they had little exposure or daily contact with black people who were on an equal footing socially.

that is NOT throwing anyone under the bus but admitting IT IS WHAT IT IS.

posted June 01, 2011 03:36 PM            

Hey, the term...."typical white person" is a racial put-down by O'Bomber when describing his grandmother. That's rich. The woman who raised him is dissed by her grandson.

O'Bomber claims to have sat in Wright's church for 20 years. You calling him a liar?

Further, O'Bomber and Michelle were married in Wright's church AND his girls were babtized there too.

Oh, but O'Bomber didn't know Wright was an American hating, America hating stone racist. Right. Right.

And, where has O'Bomber displayed all that drooled about brilliance? Surely, there must be some evidence to support media claims. But, O'Bomber has hidden all his school grade transcripts away from view and no brilliant legal papers can be found either.

Perhaps O'Bomber is just smart enough to hide records which would dispel any doubt that he's an intellectual zero who's learned elitist jargon but not much else.

posted June 01, 2011 10:30 PM              

as to his relationship with wright it was your post that suggested maybe he didn't attend that church, i said i have no idea WHAT his relationship with wright or the church was...you may have gathered by now that Church is not on my list of musts in life. life is my church, you might say. i don't find God between any four-walled building and i haven't researched obama's attendance either.

what i do remember is hearing him point out that many black people from a certain era held a lot of hatred for the white man because of the way they had been demoted from "we the people" to "they the 3/5ths people". anger is something i would think you would understand, jwhop, you display plenty of anger and bitterness...in your case against that solid block of the population you identify as leftists (varied though the individuals you lump together are).

the fact that your poster suggests he lied one way or another is nothing to do with me!

he appears to me to be smart enough. perhaps not SAVVY enough to play the people the way YOU think a president should? but that doesn't mean he is unintelligent. he is making his way through a minefield of divisiveness and corruption. maybe one day with hindsight we shall see what he was up to, maybe not. maybe like lincoln he will hit his stride and amaze all his detractors.

what he is UNlikely to do is play "hard to get" like a teenage cheerleader with the captain of the team just to get his attention and a few more bucks.

posted June 01, 2011 11:59 PM            

He actually said of his grandmother..."a typical white person".

It wasn't my post, it was an article which speculated that O'Bomber didn't attend Wright's church nearly as often as O'Bomber wanted everyone to believe.

posted June 20, 2011 04:59 PM            

Obama's Dictators
by Rowan Scarborough
06/20/2011

President Obama this month opened the White House and, with it, the stature of a presidential photo-op to one of the worst dictators in Africa: Gabon’s Ali Bongo Ondimba.

O'Bomber yukking it up with Bongo

The Bongo family (his father ruled the oil-rich nation for over 40 years) has stolen a big chunk of the impoverished nation’s gross domestic product, press reports say. The riches have allowed the Bongos to live a life of ostentatious luxury. They buy million-dollar homes in Hollywood and France and spend gobs of money on around-the-world shopping trips.

Even the mainstream media noted the oddity of an American President on June 9 putting down the red carpet for such an unsavory despot.

“The family that has ruled the African nation of Gabon for decades has been accused of taking bribes, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars and presiding over a system rife with corruption, but that hasn’t stopped President Obama from inviting President Ali Bongo of Gabon to the White House Thursday,” said ABC’s Brian Ross.

One dictator on one day at the White House might be excused as playing diplomacy with the hand you’re dealt.

But there seems to be a pattern with this President of reaching out to the worst, while snubbing the best.

A year before Bongo came to town, the leader of a staunch ally visited the White House. There was no red carpet. No photo-op. No dinner. Obama treated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu like a troublesome kid he had to scare straight.

Netanyahu was shuffled off to an office where the President abruptly left the meeting with the words “let me know if there is anything new,” according to The Times of London, after he failed to get the prime minister to give in to the Palestinians.

When Netanyahu returned this spring, he did get a photo-op. But Obama dissed him once again. He laid the framework for the visit by delivering a speech that said Israel had to shrink its borders, putting Netanyahu in the awkward position of having to publicly reject the suicidal plan.

Obama’s tortured outreach to the Muslim world has found Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referring to Syrian henchmen Bashar Assad as a “reformer.”

When they met, Obama bowed before the Saudi Arabian king. That country’s money and ideology have done more to fuel radical Islam than any other’s.

O'Bomber showing subservience to the Saudi King

Obama often criticizes Jerusalem, but rarely mentions Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist organization that vows to destroy Israel.

It was Obama’s outreach to the renegade regime in Iran that started his troublesome tilt away from Israel. Obama believed the magic of his presence would convince Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the one fueling deadly insurgents in Iraq and a nuclear weapons program at home, to sit down and talk.

One of his first acts as President in 2009 was to send a personal letter to Iran’s ultimate leader, Ayatollah Ali Kamenei, seeking a discussion on issues of mutual interest, such as Tehran’s determination to build nukes and destroy Israel.

He also cut a video to the Iranian people, calling Iran one of the world’s “great civilizations.”

“We have serious differences that have grown over time,” Obama said. “My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.”

When Ahmadinejad brutally put down a rebellion after he won what the regime calls an election later that year, the White House was mostly silent.

Two years later, what some view as a show of weakness has gotten the U.S. no where. Iran is still trying to kill U.S. troops and make nukes.

Ahmadinejad proclaimed this week he is forming an anti-West axis of Iran, Russia and China to make life even more difficult for America.

At the same time the White House was talking nice to despots in Iran, it was planning to pull the rug out from under two loyal European allies.

The increasingly authoritarian regime in Moscow did not like George W. Bush’s deal to place missile interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iran’s gathering storm. Hillary Clinton wanted to “reset” relations with Russia. So the Obama people would move closer to one-party rulers in Russia and move away from newly democratic Eastern Europe.

Obama dumped the missile defense deals to make Vladimir Putin happy. It highly embarrassed Poland and the Czech Republic, who had invested much political capital to win over opponents. Just last week, the Czech defense minister announced he was pulling out of the minor missile defense role the White House offered in place of the Bush plan to host a far-looking tracking radar.

The White House was busy in 2009 offending old friends, too. And there is no better old friend than Great Britain. After the 9-11 attacks, British Prime Minister Tony Blair rushed to Washington in a show of solidarity in a war still being fought 10 years later.

He loaned as a symbol of this alliance a bust of Sir Winston Churchill. In an earlier era, with the world at war, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt formed a special alliance to defeat another fanatical enemy.

Britain wanted to extend the bust loan during Obama’s time. But the president sent it packing—literally.

Hugo Chavez

There is no more anti-American, anti-democratic leader in this hemisphere than Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez denounces the U.S.A. regularly as he forges closer economic and military ties with Iran and other Socialist rebels in South America.

O'Bomber sharing a "power handshake" with Chavez

When Obama and Chavez met for the first time in 2009 at the Summit of the Americas, the two smiled warmly and exchanged a power hand shake.

Obama initiated the meeting. He always does with these kinds of people. There is no indication he in any way protested Chavez’s Cuba-like crack-down that sees a free press, free enterprise and free speech disappearing.

“Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and meeting with the President as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he’s acceptable,“ Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, told NBC’s “Today“ show.

Like Israel in the Middle East, there is no better friend to the U.S. in South America than Colombia. It is fighting drug-smuggling Marxist guerrillas cheered on by Hugo Chavez from over the border.

Yet whom did candidate Obama single out for criticism in South America. Who else? Colombia.

“I’m concerned frankly about the reports there of the involvement of the Colombian administration with human rights violations and the suppression of workers,” he said in a raw attempt to win labor support by opposing a free trade treaty with Bogota.

posted July 01, 2011 09:43 AM            

Rubio Blasts Obama: ‘Left-Wing Strong Man’
June 30, 2011 10:32 A.M.
By Robert Costa

Earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio made an auspicious debut.

Unlike so many first turns in the upper chamber, Rubio’s stirring remarks, which celebrated American exceptionalism, caught fire. The Florida Republican’s words were cited by Senate colleagues and championed by conservatives. To no one’s surprise, the push to put Rubio on the 2012 ticket only increased, even though the charismatic freshman continues to swat away the chatter.

Look for the Rubio buzz to continue. In an interview with National Review Online, he says that he will take to the Senate floor for his second speech this week — and this time he will have President Obama in his crosshairs.

Rubio tells us that he will respond to Obama’s recent press conference, where the president reveled in class-warfare bluster. “Quite frankly, I am both disappointed for our country and shocked at some of the rhetoric,” he says. “It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States.”

“Talking about corporate jets and oil companies,” Rubio says, missed the point. “Everybody here agrees that our tax code is broken,” he says, and he is open to discussing tax reform. “But don’t go around telling people that the reason you are not doing well is because some rich guy is in a corporate jet or some oil company is making too much money.”

Watching Obama brandish such talking points made Rubio wince. “Three years into his presidency, he is a failed president,” he says. “He just has not done a good job. Life in America today, by every measure, is worse than it was when he took over.”

posted July 03, 2011 09:58 PM            

Information...facts...are now present in public hands which bear out the predictions made before the O'Bomber so called "Stimulus" was passed with much fanfare.

It would be better to do nothing at all than to pass the monstrosity known as the Stimulus Bill.

We now find each job created or saved has cost taxpayers $278,000. Further, some of those "saved" jobs have now been lost as the so called "stimulus" was used by city, county and state agencies to stave off layoffs which now have to be made or have already been made when the "stimulus" funds allocated ran out.

$278,000 per job; more than 5 times the average annual national salary. Such a deal.

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

posted July 26, 2011 01:28 PM            

I know, I know, it's a dirty unpleasant job but someone has to listen to what the clown has to say.

What did O'Bomber have to say? More of the blather of old...Bush did it, Republicans did it, corporations did it and all are doing it...and calls for raising taxes on the American people. But no mention of what O'Bomber has DONE to stifle economic growth which keeps Americans out of work and no mention of O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in congress spending America into oblivion.

After listening to O'Bomber, it dawned on me that O'Bomber has a fundamental lack of understanding about how the American government is structured. Call it ignorance.

O'Bomber sounds more like he thinks he's in charge of the Soviet Politburo than the Executive Branch of the Federal government.

O'Bomber doesn't understand there are three, (3) Co-Equal branches of the federal government.

So, we hear O'Bomber saying this...:

I have "told" leaders of both parties that they "must" come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -- a compromise "I" can sign.

Who in the hell does this clown think he is to TELL congress to DO anything whatsoever? Presidents can request. Presidents DO NOT tell Congress to do anything...unless they want their own heads handed to them.

Speaker of the House John Boehner put it squarely to O'Bomber...face to face.

"Congress writes the laws, you decide what you want to sign."

BOEHNER TO OBAMA: ‘CONGRESS WRITES THE LAWS, YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO SIGN’
http://investmentwatchblog.com/boehner-to-obama-congress-writes-the-laws-you-decide-what-you-want-to-sign/

And...even if presidents decide to not sign congressional legislation into law, there is a mechanism in the Constitution to "override" a president's veto and the congressional legislation becomes law over the president's objections anyway.

posted July 26, 2011 01:51 PM              

such a marxist! egads. inviting the public to communicate with the WH, whatEVER next???

seems a few people are tuning in to his addresses, eh?

if people are so sick of his face, the president actually daring to communicate with the public...why are so many (including yourself) WATCHING??

posted July 26, 2011 07:39 PM            

Not requesting mind you but TELLING congress what to do. Quotes please!

katatonic, the congressional switchboard received 35,000 calls per hour today.

During the O'Bomber cram O'BomberCare down America's throat campaign, the congressional switchboard recorded 50,000 calls per hour.