Obama’s ‘tide of war’ idiocy

Obama’s ‘tide of war’ idiocy

Jerry
Philipson

When President Obama announced the withdrawal of all
American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 Friday, he said, “The tide of war
is receding,” and used this statement as justification for the decision to
leave.

The statement is one of the most idiotic, misleading
and just plain false statements Obama has made about the Middle East since he
took office. There have been many others but this one stands out for its
ignorance and duplicity.

The tide of war in the Middle East is most certainly
not receding. It is exactly the opposite and this is in large part because of
Obama’s feckless foreign policy and refusal to stand up for American interests
in the region and support American allies there.  Because of American weakness
and intransigence, a large-scale conflagration involving many players is
inevitable and this has to be placed on Obama’s shoulders.

American respect and influence in the Middle East has
been almost totally diminished since Obama took office.  All over the Middle
East America’s enemies are taking advantage of the vacuum that has been created
and are busily preparing for war on a grand scale, against the United States,
against Israel and against each other.  When Obama says “The tide of war is
receding” and using that as justification to pull American troops out of Iraq
he’s really saying that he doesn’t know what to do about the Middle East, that
he’s washing his hands of the place and that he’s abandoning America’s remaining
friends and allies there, like Israel and Saudi Arabia.  He’s also telling the
world that he’s willing to accept the rise of Islamism and Islamists throughout
the region even though this threatens the national security of the United States
itself because he doesn’t know what to do about that either.

So the tide of war is receding is
it?

Not in Iraq it isn’t. The country is embroiled in
sectarian and religious warfare which is only going to get worse once America
leaves, and the government there could easily collapse as a
result.

Not in Libya it isn’t.  The country is about to be
plunged into a bloody civil war now that there is no central authority holding
it together.

Not in Egypt it isn’t.  Ever since President Mubarak
was driven from office Egypt has become more antagonistic to the United States
and Israel, and that antagonism could easily lead to bloodshed and war in the
foreseeable future.

Not in Syria it isn’t.  Syrians are already fighting a
brutal civil war, with the regime showing no signs of backing down and ending
its vicious, pitiless repression.

Not in Iran it isn’t.  Iran is close to becoming a
nuclear power and is becoming more and more militaristic every day, especially
towards Israel and the US but really towards everyone else in the region too,
with results that are entirely predictable.

Not in Turkey it isn’t. The Turks are turning away
from the West and becoming more hostile and threatening as we
speak.

Noin Gaza and the West Bank it isn’t.  Palestinians
are becoming bolder by the minute and another intifada is virtually a foregone
conclusion.

Not in Israel it isn’t.  Israelis are feeling very
isolated and alone and may launch preemptive attacks as a matter of national
survival, especially against Iran.

Not in Saudi Arabia it isn’t.  The Saudis have been
begging the Americans for years to rid the Middle East of the Iranian threat to
them and everyone else.  They have come to the conclusion that America will do
no such thing and have decided to defend themselves if necessary, even if that
means nuclear war.

Not in Afghanistan it isn’t.  The war there is ongoing
and there can be no doubt that the country will implode once the United States
leaves.

Not anywhere that Islamists and Islamism are rising to
the fore it isn’t, which is to say everywhere in the Middle East except Israel.
Islamists and Islamism are mortal enemies of the United States and their rise
guarantees internecine warfare in the region and eventual war against the
US.

For a President of the United States to say that “The
tide of war is receding.” is beyond idiotic, misleading, false, ignorant and
blind. It is also very, very dangerous and severely compromises America’s
national security and way of life.  Obama is clearly unfit for office and the
sooner he’s drummed out of office the better.  Our survival depends on
it.

Opposition to Obama grows — strongly

Opposition to Obama grows — strongly

By and , Updated:
Wednesday, October 5, 3:20 AM

Four in 10 Americans “strongly” disapprove of how President Obama is
handling the job of president in the new
Washington Post-ABC News poll
, the highest that number has risen during his
time in office and a sign of the hardening opposition to him as he seeks a
second term.

New poll numbers suggest political opposition to President Obama is rising
and hardening. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES – Tags:
POLITICS)

While the topline numbers are troubling enough, dig
deeper into them and the news gets no better for Obama. Forty-three percent of
independents — a group the president spent the better part of the last year
courting — strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. Forty-seven percent of
people 65 years of age and older — reliable voters in any election — strongly
disapprove of how he is doing his job.

 

Strong opposition to Obama has grown markedly since the start of the
year.

In a mid-January Post-ABC survey, 28 percent strongly disapproved of the job
Obama was doing. With the exception of a poll in early May that followed hard on
the
killing of Osama bin Laden
, that number has steadily ticked upward,
as the year has worn on and the economy has remained sluggish (at best).

And even as his strong disapproval numbers have risen, Obama’s strong
approval numbers have gone into a mirror-image decline.

In January, 30 percent strongly approved of the job Obama was doing. In the
latest Post-ABC survey, that numbers is 21 percent and, as recently as early
August, it had dipped to 18 percent.

All of those numbers — and yes, we here at the Fix do love us some poll
numbers — point to a simple fact: The “anyone but Obama” crowd is getting larger
and more strident in its opinions, while the president’s base is growing less
and less strongly supportive of how he is doing his job.

To that point: 43 percent of self-identified Democrats said they “strongly”
approve of the job Obama is doing, while 74 percent of Republicans strongly
disapprove. That’s a 31-point disparity for you non-math majors out there.

The poll data provide empirical evidence for the recent switch in Obama’s
rhetoric from a focus on compromise (aimed at independents) to one that
accentuates the differences between his approach and the one advocated by
Republicans (aimed at Democrats).

The Post-ABC poll does suggest, however, that Obama’s jobs plan could well
help him repair relations with his party base. More than eight in 10 Democrats —
and 81 percent of liberals — support it.

A dispirited base coupled with a highly energized opposition isn’t an ideal
place for the president to be, but neither is it a political death sentence.
President George W. Bush found himself in a not-dissimilar situation in
2004 and managed to win re-election, using a scorched-earth approach designed to
disqualify Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) in the eyes of voters.

The latest poll numbers affirm that the 2012 election will look a lot more
like that 2004 election than it will Obama’s 2008 victory. Put another way:
winning ugly may be the only way for the president to win next November.

Democrats hold on in West Virginia: For those who were watching
baseball rather than politics last night, you didn’t miss much.

Despite some consternation, Democrats held
on to win
the special election for governor of West Virginia, with Acting
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) taking 50 percent of the vote to Republican
Bill Maloney’s 47 percent.

The AP called the race shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern time — about 90 minutes
after polls closed — a very early call that made the result rather
anti-climactic for Republicans.

Democrats were quick to argue that the GOP’s efforts to nationalize the race
and make it about President Obama failed, but the GOP did
close the gap
in the final days and weeks of the campaign.

Cain’s path to victory: With some questioning whether
he’s in it to win it
, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain laid out
his path to victory on Tuesday, and he appears to be trying to buy some
time.

The pizza magnate told
ABC News
that his goal is to finish in the top three in Iowa and New
Hampshire and, from there, win in South Carolina and Florida.

“We are not going to win every state, but we are going to win enough of the
critical ones in order to be able to get the delegates we need,” he said.

Early indications were that Cain could be a strong candidate in Iowa, but he
performed poorly in the straw poll in Ames and hasn’t been devoting the
requisite time to the state.

Meanwhile, he won a straw poll in Florida 10 days ago.

Of course, by emphasizing later states like South Carolina and Florida, Cain
could be trying to give himself more time to catch on. But we saw how well that
worked with Rudy Giuliani in 2008.

Conservative group boosts GOP incumbents: The conservative American
Action Network is launching a $1.6 million media campaign to prop up more than
four dozen Republican incumbents across the country.

The campaign, which features mail, print advertising and phone calls, accuses
Obama of trying to balance the budget by cutting Medicare and will benefit 43
House GOP incumbents and 11 Senate GOP incumbents from coast to coast. Samples
of the mail pieces can
be found here
.

Most of the Republicans receiving help are vulnerable to Democratic
challengers in 2012, but the media campaign will also benefit senators who were
just elected in 2010. It will also help Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who have come under pressure from the right and
could face tough primaries next year.

Easy first debate for Warren: The first primary debate in the
Massachusetts Senate race did little to stymie Harvard Law Professor
Elizabeth Warren, who has quickly vaulted to the front of the Democratic
pack.

City Year co-founder Alan Khazei took a shot at the “Washington
establishment” deciding the nominee, and activist Robert Massie warned
against what he called a “rush to judgment” — both veiled shots at Warren. But
there was no direct confrontation among the six contenders hoping to defeat Sen.
Scott Brown (R). They agreed on almost everything.

Warren had the most to lose; the fact that there was essentially no news out
of this debate was good news for her.

Fixbits:

Not content to let Mitt Romney have all the fun, Jon Huntsman
will deliver
his own foreign policy speech
on Monday.

Cain says being
gay is a choice
.

Chris Christie joins Rick Santorum in offering something short of
criticism
of the name of Perry’s hunting camp.

Post media writer Erik Wemple with a great
breakdown of Christie’s news conference
. Definitely worth the read.

Utah state House and state Senate Republicans are struggling
to reach a deal
on a congressional redistricting map.

Former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson (R) files
for the state’s open Senate seat.

Ron Paul says killing al-Awlaki is
an impeachable offense
for Obama.

Rummy spars
with al Jazeera
.

Former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) says he won’t announce his
plans on running for governor until the
calendar hits 2012
.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) gives
a vote of confidence
to the judge overseeing the drawing of the state’s new
congressional districts.

Disapproval of Congress hits a
two-decade high
.

One quarter of congressional freshmen have
started
their own political action committees.

National Republican Senatorial Commitee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas)
and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) bury
the hatchet
.

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

Several long-term Gallup trends at or near historical lows

by Lydia Saad

This story is the first in a weeklong series on Gallup.com on Americans’ views on the role and performance of government.

PRINCETON, NJ — A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years.

Trend: Reaction to How the Nation Is Being Governed

Majorities of Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with the nation’s governance. This perhaps reflects the shared political power arrangement in the nation’s capital, with Democrats controlling the White House and U.S. Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. Partisans on both sides can thus find fault with government without necessarily blaming their own party.

The findings are from Gallup’s annual Governance survey, updated Sept. 8-11, 2011. The same poll shows record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.

Key Findings:

  • 82% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.
  • 69% say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high and up from 63% in 2010.
  • 57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010 and well exceeding the 43% who have little or no confidence in the government to solve international problems.
  • 53% have little or no confidence in the men and women who seek or hold elected office.
  • Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, similar to a year ago, but up significantly from 46 cents a decade ago and from an average 43 cents three decades ago.
  • 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.

Congress’ Ratings Have Plunged in Recent Years

Confidence in Congress hit a new low this month, with 31% of Americans saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the legislative branch, lower than the percentage confident in the executive (47%) or judicial (63%) branch. Confidence in the legislative branch is slightly higher among Republicans than among Democrats, 41% vs. 32%.

Trend: Trust and Confidence in the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, Consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

Apart from a brief rally in public approval of Congress after the 9/11 attacks, Congress’ job approval rating has followed a similar path, declining sharply since about 2000. The 15% of Americans approving of Congress in the September poll is just two percentage points above the all-time low reached twice in the past year.

1974-2011 Trend: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

Public Officials Held in Low Esteem

Americans’ confidence in the people who run for or serve in office is also at a new low; however, the decline has been more recent, dropping from 66% in 2008 to 49% in 2009 and 45% today. For most of the history of this trend, Americans had much more positive views of those seeking or holding public office, but that changed in 2009, and the balance of opinion has since remained more negative than positive.

1972-2011 Trend: Trust and Confidence in the Men and Women in Political Life in This Country Who Either Hold or Are Running for Public Office

Americans Particularly Critical of Domestic Policy

At 43%, fewer Americans today than at any time in the past four decades say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the federal government to handle domestic problems. That is significantly lower than the 58% average level of confidence Gallup has found on this since 1972, including a 77% reading shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Gallup did not ask the question between 1976 and 1997, however, and thus may have missed low points during the recessions that occurred in the early 1980s or at the time of the House banking scandal in the early ’90s.

By contrast, faith in Washington to handle international problems (57%) is currently better than the 51% all-time low recorded in 2007, during the Iraq war, and not far off from the 65% average seen since 1972.

1972-2011 Trend: Trust and Confidence in the Federal Government When It Comes to Handling International, Domestic Problems

Along with Americans’ record-low confidence in the federal government on domestic policy, Gallup finds record skepticism about government waste. As previously reported, Americans, on average, think the federal government in Washington wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, the highest estimated proportion of waste Gallup has found on this measure in trends dating to 1979.

Nearly Half Now Say Government Poses Immediate Threat

Americans’ sense that the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals’ rights and freedoms is also at a new high, 49%, since Gallup began asking the question using this wording in 2003. This view is much more pronounced among Republicans (61%) and independents (57%) than among Democrats (28%), although when George W. Bush was president, Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to view government as a threat.

2003-2011 Trend: Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?

Bottom Line

Americans’ various ratings of political leadership in Washington add up to a profoundly negative review of government — something that would seem unhealthy for the country to endure for an extended period. Nevertheless, with another budget showdown looking inevitable and a contentious presidential election year getting underway, it appears the ratings reviewed here could get worse before they improve.

Who Is Behind Barack Obama’s Rise to Stardom?

By Victor Thorn

Is Barack Obama the product of a vast socialist
conspiracy designed to undermine the fundamental tenets established by our
Founding Fathers, all bankrolled and organized by elite financiers? The answer
is unequivocally yes.

To deconstruct this labyrinth-like network, one
must start at the top with global slash and burn speculator George Soros and his
ties to the world’s most powerful banking family. Journalist, historian and
economic researcher William Engdahl sets the stage.

“Soros has been
identified as a front man for the Rothschild banking group. Understandably,
neither he nor the Rothschilds wants this important fact to be public.” He
continues, “Soros’s connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles
of the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or accidental banking
connection.”

Finally, in a November 1, 1996 article, Engdahl writes,
“From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969, he
owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking network.”

Soros, through his Open Society Institute, funnels approximately $300
million a year into various liberal venues, including the influential
MoveOn.org, which he owns. According to veteran researcher Anton Chaitkin, Soros
also hand-picked Barack Obama to challenge Hillary Clinton (and ultimately
defeat GOP nominee John McCain). On Sept. 5, 2008, he wrote, “Barack Obama came
under special Soros sponsorship in the 2004 U.S. Senate race [and] raised
$60,000 for his campaign.” After attaining victory, Obama met personally with
Soros, then attended a fundraiser at his home.

Chaitkin elaborates further in
“Soros Runs British Foreign Office Coup Against U.S. Elections,” an online
article. “On December 4, 2006, two years after getting into the U.S. Senate,
Barack Obama went to Soros’s New York office to be interviewed for higher
office. Soros then took Obama into a conference room for other politically
subordinate billionaires. With money and connections assured, Obama announced
for the presidency soon afterward.”

Lets look at the words of Michelle
Obama from a June 19, 2008 speech. She said, “We’re going to have to change our
traditions and our history.” She explained further on Aug. 25, 2008. “All of us
are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do. We have an
obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

Who, precisely, will
determine how our world should be? Mrs. Obama’s poignant phrase was lifted
directly from Saul Alinsky, a Chicago-based Jewish extremist who penned the
handbook for far-left causes, Rules for Radicals.

To implement
his plans to undermine America, an intricate network needed to be established
that would spread its tentacles throughout every aspect of society. One of the
primary vehicles they utilized was the Tides Foundation, to which Soros
contributed $13 million from 1997-2003. Established by Jewish antiwar activist
Drummond Pike in 1976, this tax-exempt organization serves a very important
function. According to researcher Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in
September 2004, they “allow high-profile individuals to fund extremist
organizations by ‘laundering’ their money through Tides, leaving no paper
trail.”

In essence, after taking a 10 percent cut, Tides has fed over
$300 million to entities such as cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, MoveOn.org and
those who advocate abortion-on-demand, all the while assuring contributors
that
they won’t be publicly linked to these causes. One look at the Tide
Foundation’s board reveals who calls the shots.

Drummond, senior vice
president Gary Schwartz, and executive vice president Ellen Friedman are all
Jewish. Pike also used his leverage to bail out ACORN’s welfare rights leader
Wade Rathke, after he embezzled $948,507. To protect Rathke, ACORN

never contacted law enforcement officials or sought
prosecution. Instead, Stephanie Strom of The New York Times wrote on Aug.
17, 2008, “The organization announced that an anonymous supporter had agreed” to
pay off the debt. That man was Drummond Pike. To cover their tracks, Arthur
Schwartz (also Jewish) now coordinates their slippery public
relations.

Of course, Barack Obama began his political career as the
chief national trainer for ACORN, which now faces lawsuits in 14 states for
voter fraud. Obama’s mentor as a community organizer in Chicago was Gerald
Kellman, a Saul Alinksy protegé. To begin his meteoric rise toward the White
House, money originated from what Clarice Feldman of American Thinker calls the
“Gang of Four”— Soros, Peter Lewis, Stephen Bing and Herbert & Marion
Sandler. All are Jewish billionaires.

One of Obama’s most important
backers was Marilyn Katz (Jewish), who oversaw security for the SDS (Students
for a Democratic Society) and advocated violent guerrilla tactics toward the
police (as did Obama associate William Ayers of the Weather Underground). Katz
became a fundraising bundler for Obama, as well as hosting fundraisers and
serving as an Illinois delegate at the 2008 Democratic National
Convention.

The Tides Foundation controls the San Francisco-based Apollo
Alliance,
which “absolutely believes that government is the solution to all
social and economic problems.”

On July 28, Phil Kerpen of Americans for
Prosperity described how the “Apollo Alliance is designed to bring together the
elements of organized labor with community organizers and green groups.” More
importantly, Kerpen revealed that the Apollo Alliance “put out a draft stimulus
bill in 2008 . . . that included almost everything that ended up being in the
final stimulus bill.”

Van Jones, Obama’s new “green jobs czar,” described
the Apollo Alliance as a “grand unified field theory for progressive left
causes.” Who exactly is Van Jones? After participating in the 1992 L.A. riots
(for which he was arrested and incarcerated), Jones told the East Bay Express on
November 2, 2005, “I met all these young radical people of color—I mean, really
radical Communists and anarchists. And it was like: this is what I need to be
part of. I spent the next 10 years of my life working with
a lot of these
people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy black
revolutionary on April 28th, and when the verdicts came down on April 29th, I
was a Communist.”

To round out this list, the SEIU (Service Employees
International Union) is primarily responsible for what is contained in Obama’s
socialized health care bill. Andy Stern and Anna Burger lead the SEIU, both of
whom are Jewish cronies of George Soros. Their vice president is Gerald Hudson
(Jewish). Pushing this bill and the stimulus package to various media outlets is
Robert Borosage (Jewish) of the Institute for America’s Future (also a huge
recipient of Soros’s funding). Overseeing the housing and banking industries is
none other than Barney Frank (Jewish), chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee. Last but not least, Key members of Obama’s inner circle—David
Axelrod, Lawrence Summers and Rahm Emanuel are Jewish and
Bilderberg.

Putting this complicated matter into perspective is
educational theorist
and critic David Solway. On July 7, 2009 he wrote, “We
Jews are
a sly and surreptitious people . It pains me to admit this, but
candor compels. . . . [T]he best way to bring America to its knees, to weaken
its will to survive, to cleverly turn it against itself, was to do everything in
our considerable arsenal of means to deliver the White House to Barack
Obama.”

The conspiracy has been completed, and now the Jewish
Rothschild-Soros connection controls voter registration (ACORN), money
laundering (Tides), billions in stimulus spending (Apollo), possibly the future
of health care (SEIU), finance (Franks), and the Oval Office’s inner workings
(Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers).

Obama “I’d like to work my way around Congress.” and the constituion also

Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

As he continued, Obama conceded that “we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld.”  But he quickly added there are different ways to uphold the laws on the books. “You know as well as anyone that…how we enforce those laws is also important,” Obama said.  Last month, the administration made a major, unilateral change in immigration law enforcement when it announced that the government will not initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes.  To critics, Obama had indeed worked his way around Congress.  To the Hispanic Caucus, Obama said his new policy will “prioritize criminals who endanger our communities, not students trying to achieve the American dream.”

The bigger problem, Obama said, is that sort of unilateral enforcement (or non-enforcement) only goes so far.  “We live in a democracy, and at the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself under our democratic system,” he said.  “If we’re going to do big things — whether it’s passing this jobs bill, or the DREAM Act, or comprehensive immigration reform — we’re going to have to get Congress to act.”

This is the second time in recent months that Obama has publicly mused about going around Congress to enact immigration reform.  In that speech to La Raza in July, he said that “some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own” — a prospect Obama said he found “very tempting.”  But the president quickly added, “that’s not how our system works.”

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

By Rosslyn
Smith

The controversy over President Obama’s address to a
joint session of Congress underscores his ignorance of history, his lack of
understanding regarding the Constitution, and how lacking he is in political
skills other than speechifying.  Voters seem to instinctively understand which
issues transcend partisan politics and thus are appropriate for a presidential
address before a joint session of Congress.  They also have a history of not
responding well when that venue is misused.  Giving a political stump speech
before a joint session of Congress is simply not being
presidential.

We are most familiar with the annual rite of the
president’s State of the Union address, with its stylized partisanship.  In
addition, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that the electoral
votes for president be counted before a joint session of Congress.  Diplomatic
courtesy has long honored the practice of allowing an important foreign head of
state or government to address the nation by speaking before a joint session of
Congress.  Finally, great Americans — alive and dead alike — may also be
honored by a special joint session of Congress.  These are the acceptable
reasons for Congress to meet in a joint session.  When a president addresses the
nation from inside the U.S.
Capitol
on any other occasion, he is expected to speak on
matters of genuine national importance, not partisan advantage.  This is because
under our Constitution’s system of separation of powers, a president has to be
invited to come to Capitol Hill and speak.

The State of the Union address evolved from the
command in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

He shall from time to time give to Congress
information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and
expedient.

“Time to time” was quickly interpreted to mean an
annual report.  Many early presidents made this report in writing, but by the
early 20th century, it became standard practice for the president to
speak on the State of the Union before a joint session of Congress.  It is now
also a tradition that in lieu of a State of the Union address, a newly
inaugurated president will address a joint session of Congress shortly after he
assumes office with an outline of his first-term agenda billed as an economic or
budget address.  A far less happy tradition has also developed.  Truman,
Johnson, and Ford each addressed a joint session of Congress after being sworn
in upon the death or resignation of their predecessors.

Outside the annual State of the Union address and
transitions of power, presidents have pretty much limited their addresses before
a joint session of Congress to major issues of national security.  Examples
include FDR’s A day that shall live in infamy speech after Pearl
Harbor, FDR again on the Yalta Conference in the closing days of WWII, Truman
announcing the Marshall Plan, Carter announcing SALT II, and Reagan’s report on
the Geneva summit.

The man the press has been trying to compare Obama to
as a communicator made only three special joint session addresses to Congress in
eight years.  In addition to the Geneva summit address, Ronald Reagan also spoke
on Central America in April, 1983.  Reagan’s April 1981 speech before a joint
session was billed as an address on the economy, but the real purpose was to
reassure both Congress and the nation that Reagan was capable of fulfilling the
duties of the office after the assassination attempt a month earlier.  That
address is a
minor masterpiece of sound economic policies
,
genuine bipartisanship, and grace under pressure — commodities I suspect will
be in short supply next Thursday night.

George H.W. Bush made two special addresses to
Congress in four years.  One was on the need to go to war to reverse Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, the other announced victory in that war.  Bill Clinton made
only one special address to Congress in eight years.  In September 1993, Clinton
urged the joint session of Congress to pass his health care plan.  Congress
preferred to listen to the voters instead.  The plan failed, Democrats lost
control of Congress, and Clinton decided that he had better ways to move his
agenda forward.  For the rest of his two terms he confined his appearances
before Congress to State of the Union addresses.  George W. Bush also made only
one special address to a joint session of Congress in eight years.  On September
20, 2001 he announced the War on Terror in response to the attacks on September
11.

On September 9, 2009 Barack Obama addressed a joint
session of Congress on health care.  His address was no more successful than
Clinton’s in swaying the voters, but Congress charged ahead anyway.  Less than
two years later, having lost control of the House and with his poll numbers
sinking fast, Obama now plans on speaking again.  As Clinton learned, the track
record of presidents using a special joint session of Congress to promote
domestic policy proposals is not that great.  No one remembers Nixon’s 1971
speech on the economy or Carter’s 1977 address on energy as great moments in
political oration.  Nor does Congress take kindly to being scolded by a guest in
its own chambers.

It is noteworthy that FDR, another president revered
for his ability to sway public opinion, once attempted to do just that.  In 1935
FDR used his first special address to a joint session of Congress as the venue
to deliver his veto of the popular WWI
veteran’s bonus act
.
While the Senate sustained that veto, a few months later Congress sent FDR a
message.  When an almost identical bill passed a second time, a congressman took
the bill, rushed out of the Capitol, hailed a taxi, and hand-delivered it to the
White House, daring a second veto.  That veto was handily overridden, and for
his remaining decade in office, FDR limited his requests to address a special
session of Congress to issues of national security.

It is true that Truman addressed the so-called
“do
nothing” Congress
on
domestic issues in a joint session in July 1948 and then came from behind to win
reelection, but 1948 was one of the most unusual presidential election years in
American history.  Truman had not been elected to the office, and both his style
and his social background were poles apart from those of the man he replaced.
He did not enjoy FDR’s relationship with many in the national press, who often
treated him as a temporary place-keeper until another member of the East Coast
establishment could take over.  The Democrats were badly divided that election,
with not one, but two splinter candidates that year.  Progressive Party
candidate Henry Wallace had been FDR’s vice president before he was replaced by
Truman in 1944, and Strom Thurmond’s candidacy was the Southern Democrat
response to the growing power of Northern Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, who
led the 1948 platform fight on Civil Rights.  The Republicans were incredibly
complacent in the face of this disarray among their opponents.  Thomas Dewey ran
one of the most lackadaisical presidential campaigns in memory, while the
Republican Congress failed to connect with the concerns of many returning GIs.
Several historic bills had been passed by that “do nothing” Congress, but they
were mostly related to the growing Cold War, containing communism, and business
interests.  Domestic matters such as new housing were high on the list of voter
concerns.

What Truman did in his whistle stop campaign was, in
effect, to introduce himself firsthand to voters in America’s heartland in the
age before television.  Many were pleasantly surprised to see that he was very
much one of their own — a plain-spoken Middle-Westerner who hadn’t particularly
sought great ambition but who eagerly accepted the responsibility and who
offered commonsense solutions.

If anything, Obama’s situation is almost the opposite
of Truman’s.  Obama has long dwelt inside the cocoon of Ivy League-educated
experts bereft of common sense, and if anything, he has been massively
overexposed in the media.  Since 2004, the press has been extolling Obama’s
intelligence, wisdom, and first-rate temperament at every opportunity.  Many
voters took Obama at the media’s estimation of his skills in 2008.  The record
increasingly suggests that in fact, Obama possess none of these traits.  The
patented Obama partisan speech with its straw men, false choices,
blame-shifting, and self-aggrandizement in the very heart of representative
democracy is likely to only make more people realize what a terrible mistake
they made in 2008.

Obama snubs 9/11 families at Ground Zero today

Obama snubs 9/11 families at Ground Zero today

Elise Cooper

Today President Obama is traveling to Ground Zero to
commemorate the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  What is President Obama’s purpose
in going to Ground Zero if he could not be bothered to meet or invite all the
9/11 families who lost loved ones there? Many families are devastated and
saddened about being left out and do not understand why that occurred.    I was
at Ground Zero on September 11th, 2009 and can emphatically state
that not one family member is ever denied access to that sacred area.  Numbers
or space is not an excuse for turning away family members that have sacrificed
and endured the loss of their loved ones this past ten years.

The Obama representative responded that “In consultation with the National
9/11 Memorial staff, we invited a group of 9/11 family members who we believe
represents a cross section of family members from various 9/11 organizations.
The President looks forward to spending time visiting with the families of those
who were tragically killed on 9/11.”  Well, Mr. President, not all the families
just the ones handpicked.  At least the family members should be allowed to come
to Ground Zero to be recognized, especially if the President is going to say a
few words.
Those left out include the mom of a ten year old boy who was invited as
well as the husband of an elderly couple that have gone to every 9/11 event
together.  The Obama representative was contacted by Americanthinker.com and he
responded that if given the names he would correct the mistake.  A few hours
later the couple called me to inform me they were allowed to come.
Debra Burlingame who lost her brother, the pilot of Flight77, was invited
to a separate Pentagon ceremony but declined to go since she sees this as “all
about photographs.  Our presence there is just a prop.  If they really wanted to
do something for the families they would make sure they were respectful to ALL
the families.” Another family member said she did not think she was invited
because she was “not part of the ‘in crowd.'” Gary and Judy Reiss are extremely
upset that they were never notified.  They are dumbfounded over how the choices
were made and feel that “it is a horrific slap in the face that every family
member who lost a loved was invited. I am livid over this.”
President George W. Bush’s representative commented that the former
President declined the invitation to attend Thursday’s ceremony because he “has
chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight. He
continues to celebrate with all Americans this important victory in the war on
terror.”
Maybe President Obama should be sensitive to the 9/11 families instead of
worrying about how the Muslim community views the killing of Osama Bin
Laden.