The Worst President Since Before the Civil War

By Steve
McCann

Three years ago, the people of the United States
elected someone who has turned out to be the worst president since the pre-Civil
War era.  Barack Obama, whether in economic matters, domestic affairs or
international relations, has been an abject failure and has severely jeopardized
the future of the American people.

This must be the focus and message of those seeking
the Republican presidential nomination, who must not allow themselves to be
focused on demeaning each other and sidetracked by falling for the usual tactics
of the Democrat and media smear machines (epitomized by the latest specious
attack on Herman Cain).

A cursory examination of Obama’s overall record
compared with other presidents reveals someone driven purely by statist
ideology, whose narcissism renders him incapable of change regardless of the
long-term consequences.  He does not seem to care what happens to the American
people.

Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt faced far worse
economic conditions when they came into office than were in play when Barack
Obama was elected president.  Yet with one a fiscal conservative (Ronald Reagan)
and the other (Franklin Roosevelt) a liberal Democrat, even though they pursued
differing solutions to the dilemmas at hand, neither put the nation squarely and
inexorably on the road to bankruptcy and second-class status.

Barack Obama and his apologists continuously claim
that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and that if it
were not for his policies presently in place, matters would be far worse.  The
reality is that he did not inherit the worst economy since the 1930s, and his
policies have diminished the standard of living for the majority of
Americans.

The actual factors in play for Barack Obama, Ronald
Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt when they assumed office were as
follows:

	Annual GDP Growth	Unemployment Rate	Inflation
Barack Obama	1.1%	6.7%	1.0%
Ronald Reagan	.1	7.6	12.6
Franklin Roosevelt	-13.0	24.0	-10.0

For the average American, the employment numbers are
the most critical.  The following chart is a side by side comparison of the
employment situation for Barack Obama as of Election Day 2008 versus the present
day after three years of his failed policies:

	November 2008	October 2011	Difference
Unemployment Rate	6.7%	9.1%	+35.8%
Total Employment	144.25 million	140.07 million	-4.18 million
Employment-Goods Producing sector	20.9 million	18.1 million	-2.8 million
Part-time Workers (Only Jobs Available)	1.57 million	2.9 million	+84.7%
Unemployed 27 Weeks or more	2.2 million	6.3 million	+4.1 million
Avg. Weekly Wage (inflation adjusted)	$654.03	$655.87	+.2%

(http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current)

How does Barack Obama compare to some of his
predecessors, who inherited far more severe financial crises?  As a further
comparison, while he did not inherit a financial crisis, Jimmy Carter is
included, as he is considered by many the worst president in the post-World War
II era, and many of his policies triggered the massive recession and inflation
inherited by Ronald Reagan.

(Note: The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its
method of calculating the unemployment rate in 1994.  Therefore, in order to
make this a more valid comparison, those workers the BLS considers discouraged
and marginally attached to the labor force and therefore not part of the
unemployment rate calculation have been added below.)

	Unemployment Rate as of Election Day	Unemployment Rate Three years later	Difference
Barack Obama	7.9%	10.75%	-36%
Ronald Reagan	7.6	8.3	–  9
Jimmy Carter	7.8	5.9	+24
Franklin Roosevelt	24.1	20.1	+17

Barack Obama has chosen uncontrolled and unbridled
government spending, much of it directed to his cronies and fellow ideologues,
as his solution to restarting the economy.  This has created an enormous amount
of new debt for the nation with nothing to show for it.  One of his
predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, also chose that route as part of his plan to
rescue the American economy.  However, he never took it to the extreme that
Obama has done, with the aid of his allies in the Democratic Party.  During
Obama’s tenure, he has added over $4,000 billion ($4 trillion) to the national
debt.

Using the historical actual deficits as a percentage
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) applied to today’s GDP, the comparison would
be as follows (Herbert Hoover has been added, as he faced the actual massive
collapse of the economy in 1929, the first year of his term.)

	Average Deficit as % of GDP First Three Years of Term	(2011 Dollars) Additional National Debt
Barack Obama	9.23%	$4,005 Billion
Ronald Reagan	4.08	1,800
Franklin Roosevelt	3.50	1,531
Jimmy Carter	2.27	986
Herbert Hoover	.01	15

(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

The ultimate measure of the success or failure of a
president’s economic policies is the growth of the nation’s Gross Domestic
Product while facing economic headwinds.  Here, too, Barack Obama cannot measure
up to those who faced enormous challenges, as his policies and regulatory
obsession have shown him to be an anti-capitalist ideologue with more in common
with the Occupy Wall Street Movement than with the American
people.

	Barack Obama	Ronald Reagan	Franklin Roosevelt
Actual inflation adjusted GDP Growth First Three Years	.3%	13.7%	23.4%

It should be noted that Franklin Roosevelt, after
re-election in 1936, began to pursue more statist policies including demonizing
the rich, higher taxes, passing union-friendly legislation, and additional
government spending, so that by the third year of his second term, the GDP had
contracted by 6.5% and unemployment rose to 19.0% from a low of 14.0% in 1937.
Yet the annual budget deficit as a percent of GDP averaged 3.85% for Roosevelt’s
first two terms as compared to Obama’s 9.23% to date.  (http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html)

By any measure, Barack Obama is not only a failure in
his economic policies, but he is, in the aggregate, the worst steward of the
American economy since economic measurements began to be
recorded.

It is little wonder that his re-election strategy is
centered on demonizing his potential opponents and deliberately appealing to the
base nature of the human race — greed and envy — as manifested in his class
warfare rhetoric.  This is a record that cannot be defended under any
circumstances, and one the Republicans must focus upon and unceasingly bring it
before the American people.

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Jeannie
DeAngelis

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks
louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a
champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in
silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying
him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed
at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of
himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further
discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial
justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the
supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates?
Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack
Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts
police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin,
Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the
part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he
described Dr.
King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice
to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our
conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar
description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club
and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as
merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained
silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable
indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual
respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an
attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put
a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying:
“Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr.
King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a
communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the
same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while
left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating
comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his
skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither
corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he
quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication
when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for
what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black
American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and
that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a
caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by
pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the
rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal
comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with
Herman Cain as
the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top
Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were
applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and
demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named
Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman
implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness
and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring
to them as
racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term
“tea
baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn
the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a
protest infiltrated by prostitution,
public masturbation,
filth, violence,
and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for
civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream
police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad
cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt
to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him
apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to
paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona,
quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself
but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s
2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward
Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as
racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks
and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the
wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the
promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying
nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination
and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism,
and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to
address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential
opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and
choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of
racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the
responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a
leader.

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Is the POTUS Stirring Up a Revolution?

By Mercer
Tyson

Obama was hailed as a healing president, promising
peace and harmony.  What we have seen, however, is a president distinctively
divisive on racial issues, and instigating class warfare.  His actions are a
prescription for a violent revolution.

During his campaign Obama gave the highly acclaimed
speech on race (excerpt):

“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against
all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for
this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a
purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the
whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate
Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white
Americans.”

My, how things have changed; and it didn’t take long.
Shortly after Obama took office there was Obama’s reaction to the
incident
involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge Police
Department: “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor last week
after a confrontation at the man’s home.”  He never should have stuck his nose
into this.  And if he were going to say something, he should have understood the
situation prior to butting in.  Instead, he routinely took the professor’s side,
showing his real and sincere bias, and managing to anger folks on both sides of
the debate.

More recently the POTUS told a
group of Hispanics, “And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,
we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…”  Punish?
Enemies?  Not exactly harmonious, peace-inspiring words.

Then in his speech
before the Congressional Black Caucus he said, “I expect all of you to march
with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching
shoes.”

And let’s not forget the work of Eric Holder when his
Justice Department went easy in a Philadelphia voting rights case against
members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African
American.

This is our post-racial president.

And then there’s the class warfare.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama’s remarks in his
interview
with Charles Gibson should have been a clue.  When Gibson pointed out that
recently when tax rates were increased government revenues decreased and when
tax rates decreased revenues increased, Obama replied “Well, Charlie, what I’ve
said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of
fairness.”  He has accusingly said ad nauseam that wealthy Americans should
pay their “fair share,” which means that no matter how much they are paying,
they should pay more.

Mr. Obama’s repetitive attacks on the wealthy have led
to growing divisions between them and the less fortunate, such as the current
Occupy Wall Street protestors who
“want to see the rich pay a fair share of their profits in wages, wealth and
income in taxes…”  When asked about the protestors, Obama replied: “”I think
it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Usage of words such as greed, selfish, and mean, while
always a part of the liberal description of Republicans, has escalated more in
recent years.

While most pundits seem to think of this as just
another chapter in American politics, albeit somewhat intense, I’m less blasé
about it.  I see this as a potential beginning of serious violence in our
streets and neighborhoods.  At worst, problems could escalate to a point
requiring national action — possibly a declaration of a state of emergency with
military involvement.  Is it possible we could have martial law imposed on us
around next November, and, coincidentally, have the elections postponed?  Not
likely, but possible.

More certain, however, is the extended racial and
class tension that will exist for decades.  While I never expected racism to go
away completely, racial harmony in this country has been gaining momentum and
is, essentially, more of a problem to the left-wing media and certain
race-baiting politicos than to folks on the ground.  I’m afraid the actions of
this administration may reverse the positive course that people of all races
have worked so hard to establish.  Barack Obama has done his best to delay
racial harmony.

And class warfare?  The vociferous screams from the
left have prompted normally silent, tax-paying Americans to denigrate those who
don’t pay taxes: adding their voices to the argument and elevating
hostilities.

I don’t generally subscribe to conspiracy theories,
and I’m not postulating such right now.  However, you have to wonder, given Rahm
Emanuel’s remarks at
the beginning of Obama’s administration: “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you
could not do before.”  Do what? Fully implement socialism?  Create a
fascist-left country?  Simply elevate the problems with our economy and
instigate tension between the people, and you have the perfect storm for such a
scenario.  Even if this isn’t being done by design, it could happen
anyway.

This is one reason why so many on the right believe it
is absolutely critical that we remove Mr. Obama from office in 2012.   A GOP
president will certainly stir up anxiety on the left, and the cries of foul play
that existed during George Bush’s administration will resume.

Certainly a Republican will not be able to do much to
mend recent wounds.  But the GOP is never as hostile in its criticism of the
left, and the dissention will slow down and possibly stop.  Maybe after a few
years and if the economy improves progress in this area will again move
forward.

And yes, while there are not many high-profile,
moderate Dems, a more moderate and sensible Democrat could lessen the problem as
well.  However, it is highly unlikely that any Democrat (even Hillary) will
challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  And if one did, of course,
additional hostilities would generate from that.

Thanks to Barack Obama (with help from the media and
left-wing pundits) hostility in America is a high as I can recall, and close to
a breaking point.  With regard to this situation, the 2012 election represent a
break even or lose situation.  If Obama wins, we lose.  If any Republican wins,
we break even.

Pampered Protesters

Michael Reagan,FloydReports.com

The hordes of so-called “protesters”now polluting the streets of several U.S.
cities,including New York,are sending confused messages about their
grievances.

The unemployed among them complain that the jobs available to them are
beneath them. I guess that cancels out the old concept of starting in the
mailroom and advancing step-by-step to the boardroom. It used to be the norm
that one started at the bottom and worked his way up. This bunch seems to be
living under the delusion that simply by virtue of having been born they are
entitled to immediate arrival at the boardroom level with appropriate
compensation.

Viewing these unruly mob scenes,featuring numerous public sexual activities
posing as protests,I am reminded of the manner in which my dad dealt with such
malcontents. If they were government employees he simply fired them. It worked.
The remaining ones slinked back to work.

And I recall how he dealt with his son (me) back in 1965,when I dropped out
of Arizona State University and thought that I was simply going home to live
with —and off —either my mom or dad,who were then divorced. When I got home I
found that their doors were locked to college dropouts.

Nancy,my ever-loving stepmom,was busy calling all branches of the military to
let them know I was a college dropout and thus now eligible to be drafted. Don’t
you just love such devoted stepmothers,eager to help their stepsons make their
way in the world by locking the doors to keep them out?

When I finally was able to speak to my parents,they simply told me to find
another place to live and to get a job. I did both. I moved in with some friends
and got a job working at Asbury Transportation Company in Los Angeles loading
oil-well freight from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.,Monday through Friday. That’s where
I was working when my father was elected governor of California.

Did I complain that my lowly job was beneath my new station in life as the
son of the governor of California? How could I? I was the one who set that bar
low when I dropped out of college. So,to all you spoiled
brats marching and wanting better pay or bigger allowances….

Read more.

How Obama Got Around Congress Withholding $200 M In Aid To The ‘Palestinians’

Rob Miller

A story in the UK
Independent says that the US Congress showed its displeasure with the
‘Palestinians’ going unilaterally to the UN by
withholding $200 million in aid that was supposed to be disbursed to Mahmoud
Abbas’ little fiefdom by the end of this fiscal year, which ended October
1st.

Being part of the British press and sharing their well known
attitude towards Israel, the article is sympathetic to Abbas, referring to him
as being ‘punished’ and inferring that the US Congress is under the thumb of
those Evil Zionists, rather than being upset with the ‘Palestinians’ for allying
with Hamas or for abrogating their agreements under two treaties the US is
signatory to, the Road Map and The Oslo Accords.

However, there are
indications that this was a set up and if my source is correct, both the Obama
Administration and the ‘Palestinians’ were privy to it.

One of my notorious Little
Birdies works directly in the ‘Palestinian Authority’ and we’ve been
correspondents for some time, sort of frenemies, if you get my
meaning.

My
source had a good laugh at Congresses’ action. According to this person, the
Obama Administration was aware for some time that the final $200 million might
be withheld by Congress and informed the ‘Palestinians’ in advance. The Obama
Administration promised the ‘Palestinians’ that they would do their best to head
this off, but when they couldn’t, an arrangement was made with the Saudis to
make up the missing $200 million in advance.

That rang a bell…and showed
me that as usual, my source was almost certainly correct.

A scant ten days
ago, the
Saudis gifted Mahmoud Abbas and the ‘Palestinians’ with the exact sum the US
Congress was withholding from them…$200
million.

My source didn’t speculate, but knowing how these
things work it’s almost guaranteed that the Saudis either received the money
from the Obama Administration directly to give to the ‘Palestinians’ or more
likely, that the Saudis supplied the cash in exchange for an American quid pro
quo somewhere else down the line.

President Obama is going to
see to it that the ‘Palestinians’ receive their jizya no matter
what..and a little thing like Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him if he
can help it.

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared
in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
The San Francisco Chronicle, Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace and other
publications.

House Majority Leader Cantor: Obama’s Jobs Package is Dead

By Matt Cover

October 3, 2011

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.)  (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Eric  Cantor (R-Va.) said that President Barack Obama’s $447-billion American  Jobs Act was dead, adding that Obama’s “all or nothing” approach would  not work.

At a Capitol Hill briefing on Monday, a reporter asked Cantor whether the “jobs package as a package [was] dead?”

Cantor said, “yes,” and shortly thereafter said, “It seems as if the president is in full campaign mode. The president continues  to say ‘pass my bill in its entirety.’ As I’ve said from the outset,  this all-or-nothing approach is just not acceptable.”

free goodies

THIS EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED TODAY REFLECTS THE FEELINGS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE

I have never heard this said as plain or as well. Class war at its best.

The folks who are getting the free goodies, don’t like the folks who are paying for the free goodies, Because the folks who are paying for the free goodies, Can no longer afford to pay for both the free goodies and their own goodies, And, The folks who are paying for the free goodies, Want the free goodies to stop. and the the folks who are getting the free goodies, Want even more free goodies on top of the free goodies they are already getting! Now… The people who are forcing the people who Pay for the free goodies, Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free goodies, That the people who are PAYING for the free goodies, Are being mean, prejudiced, and racist. So… the people who are GETTING the free goodies, Have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free goodies, By the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free goodies, And giving them the free goodies in the first place. We have let the free goodies giving go on for so long that there are Now more people getting free goodies than paying for the free goodies. Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them. The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free goodies outnumbers the people paying for the free goodies. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves! I’M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!! Let’s Take a Stand!!! Obama: Gone! Borders: Closed! Language: English only Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare! NO freebies to: Non-Citizens! We the people are coming! Only 86% will send this on. Should be a 100%. What will you do?

Republicans Criticize Obama Trip to Ohio Bridge Years From Being ‘Shovel-Ready’

 

Published September 22, 2011 | FoxNews.com

advertisement

Republicans criticized President  Obama ahead of his visit Thursday to a bridge in Cincinnati, saying the  project he’s using as a backdrop to the public push for a new jobs  bill is going forward with or without the stimulus package.

GOP lawmakers also noted the project is at least four years from being  shovel-ready and questioned why the president was holding his event on the Ohio  side since the bridge is owned by Kentucky.

“But I respect his decision in a presidential year to do it on the Cincinnati  side of the river considering the Ohio electoral votes,” Rep. Geoff Davis,  R-Ky., quipped.

Davis and other Republicans acknowledged the importance of the bridge for  people traveling between Ohio and Covington, Ky. But they said the stimulus bill  won’t necessarily help the project along in the near-term.

“The Brent Spence Bridge is technically not a shovel-ready project,” Davis  told Fox News.

The Republican  National Committee pointed to reporting from FOX 19 in Cincinnati noting that even if the  federal government contributes $1.9 billion, another $500 million from state and  local authorities would still be needed. The project so far has only $90 million  to its name.

With full funding,  requirements like environmental studies would still push ground-breaking off for  another four years.

“Obama’s stimulus rhetoric fails to span the gap to Realityville,” the RNC  said in a memo.

On the Senate floor Thursday morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch  McConnell complained that the administration was trying to use controversial  stimulus proposals to fund infrastructure projects that should already be  funded.

“The president made the same promises when he was selling his first  stimulus,” McConnell said.

In a letter to Obama, Davis and Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who represents the  other side of the bridge, thanked him for his interest but urged him to instead  throw his support behind a bill that would “stop the federal government from  imposing excessive regulations on cement manufacturers that threaten thousands  of American jobs.” They noted he would be near a concrete plant Thursday  afternoon.

The bill, which passed out of committee Wednesday, is headed for a floor vote  in the coming weeks. It would stop regulation that Republicans say will cost business  millions of dollars annually in compliance costs, and could lead to the  shut-down of as many as a dozen plants.

But environmentalists and others are opposed to the bill. Earth Justice said  in a statement that the bill would erode Clean Air Act protections against some  of the nation’s “worst polluters” by stripping restrictions on emissions from  cement companies. The group said the bill would encourage the companies “to burn tires,  plastics and other wastes without controlling or monitoring the resulting  pollution.”

Regarding the trip to the Ohio bridge, the White  House says Obama’s visit isn’t political, calling the bridge “functionally  obsolete.”

“It desperately needs rebuilding, as do substandard roads and bridges all  across America,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said. “As the two most  powerful Republicans in Washington, Speaker Boehner and Senator (Mitch)  McConnell can either kill this jobs bill or help the president pass it right  away.

“Instead of looking for every excuse to justify doing nothing about the  damaged infrastructure in their states, we believe it’s in their interest and  the country’s interest to act as soon as possible and put people back to  work.”

Obama and others argue that the  government has a responsibility to fix America’s crumbling bridges, pointing  to the country’s decaying infrastructure as a symptom of lagging competitiveness  globally. The group Americans United for Change referenced a report claiming the  president’s bill would ensure thousands of structurally deficient bridges would  be safe, in pushing Congress to pass the package.

McConnell said Wednesday Obama’s visit to the bridge isn’t fooling  anyone.

“President Obama may think the best way to distract people from the  challenges we face is to stand near a bridge in a swing state and pit one group  of Americans against another, and hope his critics look bad if they don’t go  along with him,” he said on the Senate floor. “But I don’t think he’s fooling  anybody.”

Chabot said that while he supporting funding for the bridge, the issue  shouldn’t be used to rally support for the president’s $450 billion stimulus  bill. “The first stimulus didn’t work and we don’t need another one,” he  said.

The bridge, built in 1963, has long been in the sights of federal officials  looking to renovate the stretch along Interstate 75, which the Federal Highway  Administration says is long overdue for renovation to accommodate massive growth  in the region over the years.

Analysis for the bridge repair began in earnest this year after initial  drawings were submitted in April 2010. This month the FHA was to begin taking  public comment. The FHA construction schedule lists its start time in 2015, with  an estimated completion date of 2022.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/22/republicans-mock-obama-trip-to-ohio-bridge-years-from-being-shovel-ready/print#ixzz1YhQhcKLs

Issa to launch probe of Obama actions on Solyndra, LightSquared

By Justin Sink – 09/20/11 09:55 AM ET

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that his committee plans to investigate government loan programs to private corporations in light of allegations of improper dealings between the White House and failed energy company Solyndra and wireless start-up LightSquared.

“I want to see when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers… it wasn’t because there were large contributions given to them,” the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Tuesday morning on C-SPAN.

//

Issa said the committee was looking at whether it was improper for members of Congress or White House staff to select companies eligible for subsidized government loans when those companies could give campaign donations. Loan programs have been a popular tool to provide funding for popular industries — like tech, green energy, and American auto companies — at more favorable terms than could be secured privately.

 

The Obama administration has been defending itself against criticism by Republicans that it exerted improper influence to the aid of both companies.

Solyndra abruptly filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, surprising both employees and the administration, which had secured $535 million in low-interest loans for the company

Obama: If you love me, pass my jobs bill

Obama: If
you love me, pass my jobs bill

Sep 14
01:54 PM US/Eastern

US President Barack Obama told
fired up supporters Wednesday that if they loved him, they must help pass his
jobs bill, injecting more urgency into his push for key legislation.Obama hit another key 2012 electoral swing state, North Carolina, to hike
pressure on Republicans over his $447 billion American Jobs Act which is
designed to jolt the economy and ease 9.1 percent unemployment.

One supporter from the raucous crowd shouted to Obama that they loved him,
and in a standard response from his 2008 campaign he replied “I love you back”
then added a new twist.

“If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill,” Obama said, repeating
the line to more cheers.

Obama’s appeal may work with his supportive political base, but will cut
little ice with Republicans seeking to exploit his diminished job approval
ratings which are at 44 percent in a RealClearPolitics average of recent polls.

The president, on the latest leg of what aides say will be a months-long tour
to promote the bill, also complained that some Republicans were against the
legislation because they wanted to deprive him of a political victory.

“Give me a win? Give me a break” Obama said, during his pared down stump
speech which is peppered with demands that Republicans “pass this bill.”

Republicans however are increasingly dismissing the jobs plan as a political
stunt, complaining Obama proposes to finance it by reducing itemized deductions
for Americans earning over $200,000 a year and closing corporate tax breaks.

They have said that they are interested in some aspects of the bill which is
weighted towards payroll tax cuts and includes infrastructure spending, but may
pass those pieces separately, not in the whole bill as Obama demands.

 

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and
photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication
or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium