President Obama was once a high-profile first-term senator, but he doesn´t think the current crop -- including Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio -- is serving the country well as they seek out controversy. "I recognize that in today´s media age, being controversial, taking controversial positions, rallying the most extreme parts of your base, whether it´s left or right, is a lot of times the fastest way to get attention and raise money," he said in an interview with the Associated Press released Saturday. "But it´s not good for government."
Gee. D´ya think they are more controversial than an empty-suit first-term senator from IL keynote-speaking at the 2004 DNC and running for preezy in 2008? The self-adoration of this punk in the White House nauseates me.
Upholding the constitution is controversial but campaigning on the premise of fundamental transformation which the constitution expressly prohibits, vowing to destroy the energy industry, hanging with communists and terrorists with no demonstrable pivot point hence, sealing personal records while proclaiming to be transparent to an unprecedented level..... Nope no controversy there. Of course that´s just a teensy short list.
Obama knows how to be controversial; his own senate career began on January 4, 2005 and ended on November 16, 2008. He is the Worst of the Worst and makes us long for the simple ethics of folks like Rostenkowski and Huey Long.
When I read an article like this I am reminded of how easily the forces of evil can outwit human thinking. Unless humans embrace the values and principles given to us by our Creator, to help us discern good and evil, we as humans will resort to perception and emotion to determine what is right and wrong... but perception and emotion can be controlled by others. Life is sacred, family and marriage is sacred and even government is sacred when its purpose it to protect us instead of manipulated and control us. When our leaders disrespect those things our Creator has deemed sacred, those leaders show themselves to be evil and should be shunned, not voted for. Our nation as a whole likes what it hears when leaders lie to us, when they tell us what we want to hear instead of the truth. The result is a nation full of stupid lazy irresponsible people who have embraced evil and have supported leaders that reflect their values; values they learned, not from their Creator but from a morally corrupt media. So when those in the minority, who recognize that evil and evil people are in our government and permeate our country, try to reverse it, how does evil respond? Like a rabid dog.
Since when has doing the job you were elected to do ever been controversial?
Never until now, with a President who hides from his responsibilities because they ´are too hard´ and ´way above his paygrade´.
Senator Cruz, you just keep on keeping on. You have the nation´s blessing to continue being considered ´controversial´ by this kid in the WH. After all, you are just making him look very bad by comparison. He would love dearly to have even a quarter of your support.
#17 thanks for the wonderful comment. Silly me, by the time I got to the end I thought it said "rabbit dog".
Voting "present" tells us that he knew the entire way was paved to take over Our House and transform our country into a Marxist/communist Utopia. Never guessing that he was not worthy of the power bestowed upon him by the Lo or No information voters.
Also, ever notice that the serial trolls never dispute that he is a communist? Interesting...
Controversial to a modern day Democrat is anything expanding freedom, liberty and the plain meanings of the Founders interpretations of the US Constitution.
Can anyone with any sense of history imagine the Constitution allowing any elected President to "fundamentally transform" the country with no ammendments to that document? After all, isn´t it the US Constitution that gives us our "fundamentals"? So how do you fundamentally transform the country without changing the Constitution? Well, you can´t without doing it illegally!
I´ve had it up to there ^ with an avowed Anti-American Marxist moving past the leftist extremists by leaps and bounds, then turning around and pointing to Conservatives who´ve done nothing but stand their ground and calling them "right wing extremists.
No, were standing on the same ground as our Founding Fathers, and asking for a return to our original values.
It is unseemly and unprofessional for a president to call out people with opposing views by name. It just was never done, former presidents were in the least, diplomatic and intelligent enough to get their points across without politics of personal destruction. AND since WHEN does standing up for the Constitution make people extremists? Obama is a radical communist, was a red diaper baby and it shows.
Over the weekend, the Obama administration announced that it had met its self-imposed deadline to fix its balky health insurance exchange website for the "vast majority" of users. U.S. Health and Human Services officials issued a graphics-heavy, information-light report that claimed great leaps of progress from the earlier crash-prone website that frustrated most users for weeks. The administration says, Mission (Largely) Accomplished. The feds set the bar low and now claim to have cleared it. Federal officials crowed over the weekend that the website can handle 50,000 users at a time. But many more than that will likely flood in,
WASHINGTON — White House officials, asserting that the HealthCare.gov website is largely fixed, are under mounting pressure from Democrats and close allies to hold senior-level people accountable for the botched rollout of President Obama’s signature domestic achievement and to determine who should be fired. For weeks, the president and his aides have said they are not interested in conducting a witch hunt in the middle of the effort to rescue the website. But in the West Wing, the desire for an explanation about how an administration that prides itself on competence bungled so badly remains an urgent mission.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—Sen. Mark Pryor, speaking to a group of college officials, recently offered a biblical solution to Washington´s gridlock. Politicians should follow the teachings of Jesus, the two-term Democrat said, quoting from the Sermon on the Mount. Dale Leatherman, an administrator at a Baptist college, warmed up to the Arkansas senator after those remarks but said he still couldn´t imagine voting for Mr. Pryor next year. "Even though he personally supports conservative ideas," Mr. Leatherman said, "I struggle with the fact that he´s part of a party that does not." The ability of Democrats to keep control of the Senate in 2014
So Nov. 30 has come and gone, the day that President Barack Obama promised HealthCare.gov would be up and working. And his administration says that the site is working, dramatically better than when it first went up. On the other hand, anecdata suggest slow enrollment. So what does it all mean? Is the website working? Is Obamacare saved? To answer that, let’s break down the details a bit. First, the good news: Compared with the chaos of October, the consumer experience is much better. It could hardly have gotten worse;
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear two constitutional challenges to the HHS contraception mandate has frightened Obamacare’s media cheerleaders into launching another of their propaganda campaigns designed to protect the “reform” law from itself. Those Americans still naïve enough to rely on establishment news outlets for information on current events are being told that Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius are part of a sinister conspiracy to restrict access to birth control, endow corporations with religious rights, and escalate the “war on women.”
One story the mainstream media just loves: Republicans at war. The party’s splintered to shreds, torn beyond repair, cut in two, broken asunder. They write it week after week. The House speaker loses a vote, boom, the Republican Party is ruptured. But guess what story they never write? This one. The Democratic Party is ripped to tatters. The fake lovefest that broke out after Hillary Rodham Clinton wandered off into the wilderness in June 2008 is over. She’s back, and so is her troublemaking husband (who last week advised President Obama to “honor” his commitment
It was named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and that, right from the start, was, and is, is a double-barreled falsehood. To set the record straight, we can call this worm-infested rose by its proper name — the Patient Be Damned and let Premiums Rip Act. Since the official roll-out of the new law on Oct. 1, millions of people have lost their existing health care plans — and many or even most of those people are stumbling around in a state of shock, having discovered the sky-high replacement costs on the new insurance exchanges. The worst is yet to
When the Supreme Court is in session, one or two afternoons each week are reserved for closed-door conferences during which the justices discuss petitions for writs of certiorari. These petitions, in ordinary English, are requests by litigants for the Court to review cases that have been inconclusively adjudicated by lower courts. Such requests often involve high profile public controversies, and those scheduled for discussion on Tuesday fit comfortably into that category. Tomorrow, the justices will confer about Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius and Autocam v. Sebelius, all of which challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
Prospect theory, a predictive model of economic behavior, stipulates that when a person begins to come to terms with increasingly likely losses, they become risk-takers. Losses sting, the theory asserts, more than gains reward. Thus, risk-seeking behavior increases as the acute pain of an imminent loss comes clearly into focus. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto astutely cited prospect theory on Thursday in the wake of the unprecedented maneuver by Senate Democrats to change the rules of the Senate by a simple majority vote along party lines. The long-considered but never invoked “nuclear option” was appealed to at a conspicuous time.
THE REWRITING of filibuster rules by Senate Democrats on Thursday changed the legislative body in fundamental ways, and for the worse. Republicans whose unjustified recalcitrance provoked the change should be ashamed. Democrats who are celebrating will soon enough regret their decision. The radical action, a product of poisonous partisanship, will also be an accelerant of poisonous partisanship. Fed up with Republicans repeatedly blocking President Obama’s judicial nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Democrats triggered the so-called “nuclear option.” In violation of long-standing precedent, they voted by a bare majority to alter the rules of
Last Tuesday, at a forum put together by the Wall Street Journal, President Barack Obama told a group of C.E.O.s that he was relatively sure that healthcare.gov would be “functioning for the majority of people who are using it” by November 30th, two months after its disastrous launch. He acknowledged that the process had been “rough, to say the least,” and added that, once the site does work, “we’re going to have to obviously re-market and re-brand.” That’s not all he’ll have to do.
In the wee hours of Sunday morning -- after 3 a.m. Geneva time -- an interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear program was struck between the Islamic Republic and the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany, Iran’s most important trading partner). Iran is getting billions of dollars in sanctions relief (which President Obama will effect by executive order) in exchange for chemically degrading its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium through oxidization -- without giving up any of its 3.5% enriched uranium. Uranium enrichment is not a linear process: 3.5% enrichment is about 60% of
The nation’s view of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, colored by the horrific Benghazi assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya on her watch, has suddenly turned upside down, with more now holding an unfavorable opinion of the likely 2016 presidential candidate. A new YouGov/Economist poll found Clinton, whose approval ratings have typically been sky high, with an unfavorable rating of 48 percent, more than the 46 percent who have a favorable opinion of her. The YouGov pollsters said that the change in American attitudes toward Clinton "suggests that negative press surrounding the tragic
President Obama will cast growing income inequality and a decline in economic mobility as a “fundamental threat to the American dream” during a speech Wednesday in Washington. The speech will serve as an early preview for next year’s State of the Union address, according to a White House official, who said Obama would focus much of his energy over the next three years on the issue. “The decisions we make over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where, if you work hard, you can get ahead,” the official said.
Bill Clinton, the cliché goes, was the first black president, no matter his skin color. That being the case, Barack Obama is not the first black president, or the first African-American president, if you prefer, but the first hippie president. Clinton’s southern background and lifestyle were indeed more typically black, just as Obama’s was more typically hippie. And we’re not just talking about the “Choom gang” here, scarfing “Maui Wowie” on the sands of Oahu. We’re talking about all of it, the whole multi-culti-missing-white-mother-vanished-Kenyan-father-anti-imperialist-America-is-always-the-enemy-and-don’t-you-forget-it-nine-yards. And like most hippie culture as I knew and experienced it, it wasn’t about “peace and love.” Not
During a presentation at the White House in which President Barack Obama touted the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, the president declared that his signature health care reform law was not going to be repealed. This assertion led his administration members, his staff, and audience members to rise from their seats and give the president a standing ovation. Obama said that ACA opponents’ alternative to the health care reform law is to champion repeal and going back to the health care delivery system status quo ante. He specifically cited Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who he said was asked directly for
Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers).(Snip)That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him
A woman has revealed how difficult it is to eat healthily and stay full when living off an average food stamp budget. Melinda Moulton, from Huntington, Vermont, was one of 200 people to take part in the 3Squares Challenge, which saw her living for a week on just $36 worth of food, or around $1.71 a meal. Opting to try and eat as healthily as possible, Ms Moulton resorted to cheap foods like yogurt for breakfast, two handfuls of peanuts for lunch and lentil stew for dinner, all of which left her unsatisfied.´I don´t know how people do it,´ said
Just over two weeks ago, MSNBC host Martin Bashir delivered a harsh piece of commentary that culminated in the suggestion that someone should “s-h-i-t” in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin‘s (R-AK) mouth. Bashir offered an abject apology on his next broadcast, but a chorus of critics continued to demand action against the host. After a reported “vacation” for the host earlier this week, Bashir announced, Wednesday afternoon, that MSNBC and Martin Bashir are parting ways. Here’s the statement from Martin Bashir, via email: After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday. Upon
[Video] President Obama on Wednesday declared that addressing income inequality would be the focus of “all” of the White House’s efforts “for the rest of my presidency.” In a sweeping address that touched on raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure and ending tax breaks for the wealthy, Obama warned that the American economy has become “profoundly unequal,” declaring economic mobility the “challenge of our time.” “The combined trends of increasing inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe,” he said in an hour-long
Nineteen people stood behind President Obama on stage in the Executive Office Building Tuesday as the president kicked off a new campaign to promote Obamacare. One of those people, a young Florida woman named Monica Weeks, introduced Obama after telling the story of being struck with Crohn´s Disease at age 19 and receiving expensive treatments for several years that were covered by her parents´ health care plan — because Obamacare allowed her to remain on that plan until age 26. Now, Weeks said, she has coverage through a job. "The Affordable Care Act gives young adults who are just starting
CNN host wondered out loud on his show this evening whether the physically unfit Chris Christie could follow the "perfect physical specimen" Barack Obama into the White House: "After the perfect Barack Obama, who´s a perfect physical specimen to many people´s eyes, does it matter?" Morgan asked his guest. "Or is actually somebody very different, someone who´s much more of a regular kind of guy who likes cheeseburgers and beer, but appears to be a straight talker, somebody perhaps more of a straight talker than it appears Barack Obama turned out to be?"
Continued global warming poses a risk of rapid, drastic changes in some human and natural systems, a scientific panel warned Tuesday, citing the possible collapse of polar sea ice, the potential for a mass extinction of plant and animal life and the threat of immense dead zones in the ocean. At the same time, some worst-case fears about climate change that have entered the popular imagination can be ruled out as unlikely, at least over the next century, the panel found. These include a sudden belch of methane from the ocean or the Arctic that would fry the planet, as
Nobody could accuse the press of ignoring the fiasco-on-a-server that is HealthCare.gov. The Obamacare website’s woes are dominating coverage on the network news, the cable talk shows, the blogs and, of course, high-octane websites like POLITICO. But did the press do a good job of covering the Affordable Care Act before the health care exchanges went online—sort of—on Oct. 1? Were we adequately warned of the troubles that were to come? And now that HealthCare.gov’s problems are headline news, is the coverage of it any better? Sure, one can find a few examples of one news outlet or another warning of impending