Ben Shapiro: Obama blows off President at the White House

 

[VIDEO] I think I can get with Ben Shapiro's point in this piece. He views Obama as a celebrity President more than he was a politician. Obama was a celebrity or even a "messianic" figure who came to fundamentally transform the U.S.A. Because most of us fell for his charisma we did hoist so many expectations unto him, however, the results of this became bad public policy.

Of course from the celebrity of Obama came the celebrity of Donald Trump. After 8 years of Obama we got the populism of Trump. And now we got the "messianic" figure of Joe Biden except he's failing so much that Obama isn't treating his former Vice President the same way.

Remember earlier this year the President was trying to get his former President's attention and Obama just ignored the current President. Isn't that insane? It's almost like saying I'm more important and people like me more, so I just won't give you the time of day.

Perhaps we need to treat our political leaders as such, political leaders. Not as celebrities who want to be seen not on the cover of newsmagazines, but on the covers of more cultural magazines. 

CapFax: Madigan wants to remove Stephen Douglas portrait from House floor

Stephen Douglas

If you don't know Stephen A. Douglas was a 19th Century Democrat US Senator from Illinois who ran against Republican Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Douglas lost to Lincoln and as a result Honest Abe became one of the greatest of US Presidents.

Douglas as it turned out owned slaves in Mississippi from what I see on Wikipedia - probably could find much better sources - which he inherited from his first wife's family. That's the basis of removing Douglas portrait from the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives.

Madigan wants to remove Stephen Douglas portrait from House floor, replace it with one of Obama https://t.co/W75vsKhHHw

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) July 9, 2020

I normally repect Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, however, he's giving in to this symbolism of removing the images of people as he stated in a press release:

“Of course, removing these images does not erase our history, but it is one more step in acknowledging the suffering of so many and committing to creating a better Illinois for everyone.”

And he wants to insure that Dr. Martin Luther King's statue will be placed in a far more prominent position at the state capitol. He plans to introduce a resolution to vote on Sen. Douglas' removal, and they will do research on any prominent person with a statue on state house grounds.

Oh I glossed over this instead of Stephen Douglas' image on the house floor in it's place President Barack Obama - although it must be noted I don't know how I feel about that. I see Senate President Don Harmon has chimed in on it, but to be honest he should consider Obama in a place of prominence in the Illinois Senate chamber. President Obama afterall was a longtime member of the Illinois Senate, he's never served in the House.

2008

10 years ago, I was still trying to finish up my political science degree at Morehouse. Also the Presidential race was going down to the wire with Sen. John McMain (R-AZ) and his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) running against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Now unlike 2016 this election almost seems like a forgone conclusion Sen. Obama was likely going to win and obviously did.

Just think about the crises going on back then. The public seemed very tired of the war raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also let's not forget about the financial crisis which took out some of America's prominent investment banks and also left many foreclosed homes in neighborhoods around the nation. I was on the verge of graduating in 2009, but there wasn't much or me to be optimistic about.

Lately I thought about this post that I had written the month Obama took office as President. I wanted to get more involved though unfortunately it was mostly a pipe dream. For the most part I continued to do what I knew to do which was blog about it.

Besides at that point in time I had just started The Sixth Ward blog, which is still somewhat going strong today. Regardless, I need to do better with getting involved especially as far as the grass roots. I'd like to think I have something to offer, just a matter of how I offer it.

Trump taking the oath and inaugural speech

[VIDEO] I did this 8 years ago with Obama and his first inauguration. This time I do this for the new President - the Donald.... It was a great Speech and mentioned America First - even if someone may have found that offensive for historical reasons.

All the same he made it clear the forgotten men and women of this nation are forgotten no more and is being returned to "we the people". Let's see if President Trump can live up to this.

BTW, I was looking for a post I written about my interest in getting more involved in politics. It seems this is always a goal when changes like this happen. Mostly talk, but it seems for the moment politics have become much more interesting to me as of late. It's something that will be explored here on this blog.

Friday is Inauguration Day for Donald Trump

Like it or not we're going to see a lot more of him after 12 Noon on Friday which is when Donald Trump loses the -elect portion of his new title and takes the oath. Trump becomes President of the United States, President...

This is the final act of an interesting election season which saw some mudslinging, namecalling, controversy, federal investigations, etc. And as all those happen it seemed that moment was clearly on Trump's side and there was nothing that was going to change that. Not even a very vulgar hot-mike locker room conversation...

Without a doubt Trump is often portrayed as very divisive. He made an impression among the American people during last year's election. He was without a doubt very outspoken, and when you think about it he always has been. He hasn't always been soft-spoken even as a mere celebrity.

So as of tomorrow he takes on the reigns of our nation. The new chief executive of the USA and while I didn't support him with my vote last year he deserves a chance to succeed or fail. I know there are those that don't want him to even have the opportunity to fail but he will have one.

And unlike those many house Democrats which includes civil rights icon John Lewis who choose not to attend the inauguration on Friday, I hope to be in front of the TV tomorrow. Watch the festivities take place before reporting to work on Friday.

While you're at it check out whitehouse.gov. What happened when the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations took place suddenly the website for the President of the United State simply switched gears quickly.

#Selma 50 years later

From @jeffmason1: The Obama family and Bush family join marchers to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. pic.twitter.com/NuMMx4F3XS
— WSB-TV (@wsbtv) March 7, 2015

Over the weekend there was a lot of news out of Selma, Alabama commemorating a famous civil rights march that started in that town (which also spawned a major motion picture based on those events 50 years ago). The bridge that was largely a symbolic epicenter of that event was host to a 50 year anniversary march which featured two Presidents of the United States.

I got to find out why former President George W. Bush decided to make his way to Selma with his wife Laura Bush. It certainly was a cool gesture as I truly believe the fight for civil rights back in the 1960s or even today is a just bipartisan cause.

Partisanship with civil rights in my mind has no standing in the demonstrations of 50 to 60 years ago. A segment of the population back then were being denied their rights and it was unacceptable. Most people who saw how civil rights activists were treated on their TV screens back then realized the same thing, hopefully.

So I've been seeing complaints that President Bush had been cropped out of the pic with President Obama. The uncropped pic you see above and the cropped pic you may have seen via the NY Times.

Now I'm not going to add onto the speculation to why this occurred. The question is was it partisan. If it was then I would say petty because I truly believe civil rights was right regardless of any political leanings. So if this was merely partisan then the cropping was certainly petty. Although the photograph claims this hadn't been intentional at all.

I recognize that many may not like President Bush whose administration lasted from 2001 to 2009 mainly because of his execution of the War on Terror. At the same time a Republican former president and a sitting Democrat president - who also happens to be Black - marching at a commemoration of a 50 year old event should be good press. It only shows that no one party or ideology can say they are the party of civil rights.

The Hill: Is Supreme Court's chief justice ready to take down ObamaCare?

This article caught my eye because a few years ago when the SCOTUS was considering the constitutionality of Obamacare the ruling was shocking to a certain segment of the electorate. Conservatives wanted to see it thrown out and under the bus instead it got a new life. Now that it's firmly in place what would SCOTUS do this time? Would it be any different?

VIDEO: Governor says tone of this President is troubling

[VIDEO] So I got wind of this video produced by the Republican Governor's Association back in February where Texas Gov. Rick Perry gave a talk about a number of subjects especially how states have interacted with this current President. As a matter of fact I found this video via CainTV which commented that Gov. Perry was discussing how President Obama threatened state governors.

While I recognize this is an old video, is this a recurring problem with the Obama administration and especially the President himself?

The relationship between Presidents Clinton & Obama

You know how I'm reading this. Clinton has an ego and can't help but express it. Obama on the other hand well he may have more of a bruised ego than Clinton. If you follow the right wing, they may say the current President has an outsized ego of his own. IF they both have egos then it may explain the friction between the 42nd & 44th President.

BTW, yes Clinton had a better economy when he left office although I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to any act of "genious" on his part. Obama has health care reform which had eluded Clinton even if it isn't showing itself as a crowning achievement.

Come to think of it, how many people misses the time when Clinton was President? How many people will miss the time Obama was President? Time will only tell.

I only miss Clinton's presidency because I was still in high school when he was in office.

Le Deluge

[VIDEO] Unfortunately I'm not up on my French history. I know that near the end of the 18th Century the French revolted and overthrew their monarchy and executed their king & queen. Then Napoleon took over after France became a republic and then Napoleon became emperor.

Who knows, France's decline in those days started with the reign of Louis XV that Bill Whittle describes in this recent video. In this case Whittle compares Louis XV with the administration of President Barack Obama. While Whittle, makes reference a quote attributed to King Louis - "After me, the flood" ("Après moi, le déluge") - was never proven to be said by him. In fact it can't even be proven that anyone associated with him either said it or if he truly said it.

Either way what's the point of this quote and why is Whittle attempting to throw Obama in this? Well Whittle's point in say this is about passing the back. It's not about getting it right TODAY, but about passing the back to the next generation or person. It's someone else's job to fix it.

If that's true, a presidency that began with so much promise. A promise to fundamentally change the United States of America has fallen far short. Not only that, the President hasn't accomplished much during this almost one term and a half in office. He got Obamacare & a Nobel peace prize (merely for existing nothing tangible) however it's safe to say that his administration involved a lot of fighting with Republicans and nothing but wall-to-wall crisis that haven't be solved.

Via Instapundit!

Chicago Reader: It's getting harder to snicker at Obamacare

Check out those cartoons over there at the Reader. They're not just directed at "Obamacare" but other aspects of Obama administration policy. For example you will even see something about the President's policy with regards to Ukraine. Ouch!

Excuse the ouch, the first cartoon takes aim at the Republican inability to make an issue of Obamacare.

Daily Mail: Obama 'sucked less than Romney': Former US Sen. Bob Kerrey

Former Senator Kerrey is a Democrat from Nebraska who served in the senate for two terms from 1989-2001. He really takes President Obama to task during a recent interview:

Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey thinks President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat, was re-elected in 2012 because he 'sucked less' than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The Nebraskan straight-talker told MailOnline in an exclusive interview that Obama isn't up to the job of bringing liberals and conservatives to the table to rescue America's slowly choking entitlement programs.

And Obama, he said Wednesday in his Manhattan office, knew full well he was lying when he promised that the Affordable Care Act would allow Americans to keep insurance plans they liked.

'He had to know he was misleading the audience,' Kerrey said quietly, recalling the newly minted president's countless promises as Congress and the public debated his signature health insurance overhaul.

There was a time I fervently followed what was going on in Washington, DC. These days I don't do that great of a job, however, I do recognize if you believe quick blurbs here and there that there is a polarization going on these days. Perhaps worse now than ever. What does Sen. Kerrey say about this?

Asked how to break the congressional logjam, Kerrey thought for a moment and said, softly, 'It takes a president. It takes a president.'

Is Barack Obama that president? Kerrey stayed silent but shook his head.

'I'm shaking my head "no,"' he acknowledged, finally.

'If he was up to it, he would have done it. He can't run for re-election.'

Finally this is what he says about "Obamacare":

When the Affordable Care Act met its most vigorous Republican opposition in late 2009, the U.S. economy was still floundering and the business community's eyes were focused on GDP growth, not a new set of health-benefit mandates.

'I wouldn't have done health care,' Kerrey said.'I think the big mistake was ... to say, "Whew! We've got the stimulus done, okay, the economy's going to come bouncing back in 12 months – let's do health care,"' he explained.

'Only the economy didn't come bouncing back.'

'We're teetering on the edge of going out of business through most of 2009,' Kerrey recalled. 'And I think you need to just keep driving, driving, driving on the economy, and make it as bipartisan as possible.'

Obama compounded his rhetorical mistakes with political ones, he said, by agreeing to ditch a proposal allowing Americans to buy into the Medicare system the way they would buy a policy from a private insurer.

'"And now you want to do health care," Kerrey imagined Democratic pols telling Obama near the end of his first year in office. 'It's okay, you're going to do health care. I haven't talked you out of it, Mr. President. [But] don't give on the public option.'

Even if the Obamacare law had died in Congress, he insisted, the politics of holding fast to the public option would have favored Democrats since Medicare is among the federal government's most universally popular programs.

'I would have been much better off campaigning saying, "My opponent does not want you to have the right to buy into Medicare,"' Kerrey mused.

If only the Prez had this prudent advice during his first term in office.

So what's going on over there in the Ukraine???

Sometimes I wish I knew something about cartography. I could create a visual aid illustrating Russian movements into the Ukrainian region of Crimea. Crimea is bounded on this map provided between the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

The Urkaine is a former Soviet republic that became independent with the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Also on the map provided I learned for the first time that Chernobyl is actually located within that nation's borders.

Anyway, we're learning that there's some instability occurring in that nation. A government was essentially overthrown although that government still claims that they're the rightful regime. While a new regime is trying very hard to defend against a Russian incursion who's stated purpose is to protect Russian citizens within the Ukraine.

It's bascially decided that Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to behave like a thug in the long line of Russian autocrats, I'm concerned that it could get ugly. In fact a Canadian Foreign Minister referred to Russia's recent campaign as akin to the Nazi's invading the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia.

We see that President Obama is interested in this development as he has made comments condemning Russia. It seems he had a very cool relationship with his fellow head of state in President Putin. So who knows if Obama's word will have an effect on the situation.

Here's hoping this situation doesn't develop to be much uglier than it seems to be so far.

So "Obamacare" will reduce working people's income...

You know sometimes I wonder how much analysis of "Obamacare" I should believe. It's certainly a laudable goal to make healthcare more accessible financially by many people. The only question is a matter of how.

The President got dinged for his statement on if you like your coverage you can keep it. And then he got dinged on the awful roll-out last year. It's probably on many fronts that he got dinged for how this was managed.

This article by Byron York via Instapundit shows another was "Obamacare" was dinged:

Brookings scholars Henry Aaron and Gary Burtless sought to determine the law's impact on income in 2016, when almost all of Obamacare will be in effect. To do so, they adopted a broad definition of income -- not just a person's wages, but also pension income, employer health coverage, government cash transfers, food stamps, other benefits, and now, subsidies from Obamacare.

They found quite an impact. "The ACA may do more to change the income distribution than any other recently enacted law," Aaron and Burtless wrote. Obamacare provides billions in subsidies to those who qualify, expands Medicaid benefits, cuts Medicare, fines those who don't purchase government-approved coverage and levies new taxes -- all of which will change how much income millions of Americans bring in each year.

Aaron and Burtless' first finding is no surprise: Obamacare will mean more for the lowest-income Americans. It will increase income by 9.2 percent for the lowest bracket — households making below about $21,000 a year — for those in their working years, age 25 to 64.

Then the surprise. Obamacare will reduce, by an estimated 0.9 percent, the incomes of working-age Americans in the next-lowest income bracket, households making between about $21,000 and $40,000 a year. And in the next income group, households making between about $40,000 and $65,000 a year — Obamacare will reduce their income, too, also by 0.9 percent.

A 1 percent reduction in income is relatively small. But it is still a reduction -- and not at all what President Obama and Democrats in Congress promised. When the president pledged that Obamacare would make the health care system "better for everybody," it's doubtful Americans interpreted that as meaning it would reduce their income.
...
Why? There could be a number of factors, but the authors suggest that because the Affordable Care Act will make health care more expensive, a significant number of people who receive health coverage through their job will be affected. "Incomes fall ... primarily because the expansion in employer-sponsored insurance is predicted to cause a modest drop in money wages as employers devote a larger share of their compensation payments to health benefits," the researchers wrote.

Like I said, I'm not entirely certain how much of this to take to heart or not. What's acceptable to me is that the Affordable Care Act is a significant change that unfortunately isn't going away so easily. Unfortunately we will have to continue to deal with the fallout of the significant provisions of this significant piece of legislation.

Another piece of analysis, "Obamacare" discourages able-bodied people from working. This almost feels like piling on!

2014 State of the Union speech

[VIDEO] Last night my mother sort of wonder how I don't know the many protocols of the State of the Union speech although I'm supposed to have a degree in political science. Some of that they don't teach in class however still politics is my thing anyway she claimed.

Many people who watch aren't concerned about the many protocols that I would imagine only the insiders would know. They're there to watch the President of the United State deliver his annual message to a joint session of Congress.

So then I got to thinking, why are these many protocols a mystery to me. My answer is that the SOTU isn't required watching for me! I don't remember the last time I've watched the speech.

Last night and this morning I've read many reacts and last night one person was "drunkblogging" the speech. Of course many on social networking sites were reacting to his speech, many of them likely support President Obama and anything he does or says.

While it was difficult to remain focused on his speech last night primarily because it wasn't of great interest to me anyway he did try to highlight one major point about "Obamacare". He illustration how signing up for coverage helped a young lady get some life saving surgery that would've bankrupted her. Then further urged Americans to sign up for coverage by March 31st.

BTW, in spite of my lack of interest it's usually a bit of a tradition to post this speech here since it's available on YouTube. It will be done here today, in case any of you missed it and/or you just want to watch it again. Perhaps some of you have your own thoughts on the speech as well.

Daily Beast: Why Youth Is Revolting Against Obama

Well, these appear to be odd times isn't it? Not sure what to say to this, but it's worth sharing anyway:

In 2008, he seemed like the coolest cat to hit the national scene in a long time, almost scientifically engineered to appeal to idealistic young Americans. How times have changed.

It’s like totally official, now, bro: Even the young Americans who were central to Barack Obama’s election in 2008 and 2012 are sick of the president, with a large and growing majority disapproving of the job he’s doing. In this, they’re just like their elders.

A new Quinnipiac Poll finds that only 36 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 approve of the job the president is doing while fully 54 percent of the kids give him the thumbs down (10 percent didn’t know or care enough to respond to the topic). Back in March 2009, 62 percent of 18 to 29 years approved, compared to just 20 percent disapproving.

Millennials may be young, but they’re not stupid. As bad as Obama’s time in office has been for older Americans, nobody has taken it on the chin quite as bad as kids under 30, who are more likely to be unemployed, broke, and facing decades of sub-par wages if and when they do finally get a job.

Of course there is more to this. Via Instapundit!

So who loses politically with Obamacare?

Since it seems the recently concluded shutdown didn't seem to make Republicans look good I can only wonder if this assessment of the issues with "Obamacare" will actually pan out in next year's congressional elections. Time will only tell because the elections are in the next year. This Big Government piece is a good read, however, we won't know until American's are ready to vote in 2014.

Via Newsalert!

Washington Post: Obama signs bill to raise debt limit, reopen government

Wow! It's over after only 16 days, will the Republican base like this cave-in. Well at least if they view this a caving in.

After shutting down the U.S. government for 16 days and driving the nation toward the brink of default, a chastened Congress voted late Wednesday to reopen federal agencies, call hundreds of thousands of civil servants back to work and raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit.

An agreement struck by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ended a stalemate created last month, when hard-line conservatives pushed GOP leaders to use the threat of shutdown to block a landmark expansion of federally funded health coverage.

That campaign succeeded mainly in undermining popular support for the Republican Party, however. By late Wednesday, dozens of anxious GOP lawmakers were ready to give President Obama almost exactly what he requested months ago: a bill to fund the government and increase the Treasury Department’s borrowing power with no strings attached.

“We’ve been locked in a fight over here, trying to bring government down to size, trying to do our best to stop Obamacare,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told a Cincinnati radio station. “We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win.”

The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the deal Wednesday evening, 81 to 18, with more than half of Senate Republicans voting yes.

A few hours later, the House followed suit, approving the measure 285 to 144. Eighty-seven Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus in approving the measure, allowing Congress to meet a critical Treasury Department deadline with one day to spare.

Obama signed the measure into law shortly after midnight,, reopening parks and monuments across the nation, restoring government services and putting furloughed federal employees back on the job, many of them in the Washington region.

“Employees should expect to return to work in the morning,” Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the White House budget director, said in a statement.

Well, it looks like they may have to do this all over again next year. Hopefully not a gov't shut down, but we'll hear about the debt-ceiling and sequester once again!

VIDEO: President Obama Addresses the Nation on Syria

[VIDEO] On Tuesday night the President gave his speech on the Syrian situation. He noted a number of developments that has roused intervention by the US Government in the civil war in that Mid-East nation. Mainly alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians by the regime President Bashar al-Assad.

While our leaders in Washington continues to discuss the situation it appears in the rest of the world action is being taken. For example, Russia has offered a solution to this crisis and President al-Assad appears willing to possibly give up all of his stockpiles of chemical weapons.

This I hope would prevent any military intervention in Syria. There has to be a vested American interest in any military action over there and while laudable to force any nation to adhere to the rules of war it would bother me if we expend American forces once again to the region. In order for me to be convinced that this is right other than for the human rights aspects the American people want to know for sure if it's in their interests to intervene.

Also, the American people don't want this situation to turn out much worse for not only Syrian civilians but for Americans already weary of the conflicts that exist in the Mid-East. I'm rooting for no American military action!

Obamacare provision delayed...

There's a lot to that has been written about a recent announcement that a provision of the Obamacare law passed in 2010 will be delayed one more year from January 2014 to January 2015. Basically what's being pushed back is the provision where employers who have at least 50+ employees who work over 30+ hours per week would be forced to provide health insurance.

Having to quickly scan any articles about this shows that many of the talking heads out there are looking at this with political eyes. Think about it next year is not only state elections but congressional elections. Not that I've been paying attention to any forecast on how either of our major parties look in both houses of Congress.

Think about this however. When Obamacare was passed in 2010 who could've anticipated the trouncing the President's party would take at least in the Congressional elections with the Democrats losing control of the US House of Representatives. Would maintaining this provision prove precarious for Congressional Democrats heading into 2014?

Also another aspect which interests me is the lens through businesses will look at this announcement. Without a doubt this legislation is well meaning intended to help many Americans gain access to health care that was beyond their reach. It's already expensive to go see a doctor or to get care for any ailment and of course many employers aren't exactly able - if not willing - to provide any sort of health care coverage for their employees.

As a matter of fact an article that I have read on this subject suggest that this delay will prove beneficial to those who would in the food service, retail, and hotel industries. Hopefully responsible employers who value their employees will be able to do what they can to provide health insurance for their workers. Because of this law and its well meaning implications we may have heard where some employers were already talking about cutting worker's hours in advance.

Also I associate this with the minimum wage workers. I believe in the idea of moving up in the work world getting promoted or gaining skills to be able to get better jobs in the labor market. Alas a well meaning health care mandate and a potential rise in the minimum wage seems like a good idea. Unfortunately it seems that this may have adverse effects on the workers in the short term at least as business seek a way to cope.

In any event it would be interesting to continue to read all analysis of the decision of Obama's administration to delay implementation of their landmark achievement so far. What would be the implications for those affected businesses and would this help the political prospects for either party?