Pope Francis Speaks to Congress, Urges “Compassion” For “Immigrants”

untitled (3)Francis spoke to Congress, yesterday.

The Daily Mail reports that

Pope Francis delivered a stinging blow to nativist conservatives bent on keeping illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees out of the United States, saying Thursday in a landmark address to Congress that Americans should show compassion to immigrants of all stripes.

‘When the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past,’ the Roman Catholic pontiff said. ‘We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us.’

Speaking in English – a language he has learned only recently – Francis also dropped coded messages to conservatives about gay marriage and abortion, and made an impassioned plea for a left-leaning approach to capital punishment in an unprecedented visit to Capitol Hill by a sitting Pope.

‘I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without,’ Francis told a packed House chamber filled with legislators, Supreme Court justices and multiple presidential candidates.

‘Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family.’ 

And without mentioning abortion by name – or the name of the embattled domestic Planned Parenthood organization – Francis told lawmakers that the ‘Golden Rule … reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.’

Francis spoke calmly but emphatically, never raising his voice as presidents often do in their State of the Union addresses to joint congressional sessions.

He was greeted by polite applause at certain points – particularly when he began reciting the Golden Rule but was interrupted before he could finish – ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you.’

Also, notably, applause broke out after these words: ‘The Golden Rule reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of development.’ 

But the applause was never raucous, a sign that members heeded party leaders’ directive not to applaud effusively or ‘glad-handle’ Francis if they got close to him.

Behind him on the raised speaker’s dais, close watchers got a different show during the speech, as both Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner – both well-known emotional men – proved to be almost as watchable.

Throughout the speech, Biden gravely nodded his head and looked down as if in serious thought. But Boehner appeared to tear up at several points, and was openly crying later on the Speaker’s Balcony after the address.

Francis’s speech was sprinkled with references to American history, as the pontiff repeatedly referenced and occasionally quoted from President Abraham Lincoln, civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., Catholic Worker Movement founder Dorothy Day and Cistercerian monk Thomas Merton.

The pontiff made clear his firmness on the sanctity of human life, not only the veiled reference to abortion but also his opposition to the death penalty. 

 Biden, a Roman Catholic who co-presided over the Joint Session of Congress as the constitutionally appointed president of the U.S. Senate, caused a stir this week by declaring that he believes life begins at conception.

But it’s Francis’ comments about immigrants that will be most sharply felt as the U.S. deals with the twin crises of Syrian refugees and an immigrant invasion from Mexico and Central America, both of which the Obama administration has taken steps to pacify by loosening America’s borders as a show of compassion.

‘Thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones in search of greater opportunities’ in in North America, he said. ‘Is this not what we want for our own children?’

‘We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.’

WIthout naming Syria, the Muslim faith, the ISIS terror army, or any of the European nations that have hedged their bets again welcoming the tide of migrants displaced by Islamist armies, Francis noted ‘a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War.’

‘This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions,’ he said. 

Ultimately the shepherd of more than 1.2 billion Catholics counseled adherence to a Biblical do-unto-others philosophy.

‘Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated,’ he implored Congress. ‘Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves.’

‘In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.’ 

Francis did warn against religious fundamentalism of the type that drew ISIS into the fight that has displaced an estimated 4 million Syrians, mostly young men.

‘Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion,’ he said. 

‘We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.’

Since this happens to be my blog, please allow me to state the following, as I believe it to be:

Friends have asked me if I believe that Christ would be in favor of this “Social Justice” movement that has consumed some churches in America, replacing Christian Doctrine with a Modern Liberal Political Agenda. No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

Regarding his comments concerning “immigrants”, the Pope left out a very important word: ILLEGAL.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform happened during President ill “Bubba” Clinton’s tenure. Bubba appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Do you want to have access to the blessings of American Citizenship, such as the right to attend our schools? Fine. Become an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Regarding the Syrian “Refugees”:

Why did the Pope only concentrate on the Muslim Refugees from Syria? Why did he not mention the Christian Refugees from Syria, presently in our country, whom Obama is sending back to their home country to most certainly be killed?

And, why did he not mention Pastor Saeed, and the other three prisoners, being held unjustly in Iran, when Obam and Kerry are lauding their “Genbtleman’s Agreement” with that country of Muslim Barbarians, giving them nuclear capability?

With all due respect, sir, Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. He hated sin. Yes, he spent time with sinners…TO LEAD THEM TO REPENTENCE. JESUS CHRIST DID NOT CONDONE SIN. BREAKING THE  LAWS OF A SOVEREIGN NATION IS COMMITING A SIN.

So is entering a country to commit violent acts, in order to spread Islam throughout the world.

I’m just saying.

Until He Comes,



Obama Rubbing Hands in Glee, Preparing to Grant Mass Amnesty

illegal immigration 7714President Barack Hussein Obama plans on issuing an Executive order, rewarding as many as 5,000,000 criminals with a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

And, he couldn’t be more pleased with himself.

According to fusion.net,

It’s time for another showdown in the country’s capital. Republicans won the Senate and full control of Congress in the midterm elections. The president is reportedly about to counter with executive action on immigration reform, though nobody knows how far he’ll go.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos that the White House hasn’t made a final decision, but the president is ready to make good on his promise to act on behalf of the nation’s undocumented immigrants in the absence of a new law before the end of the year.

“The president is disappointed that this legislative solution won’t be achieved, but the president is looking forward to taking executive action on his own, to solve as many of these problems as he can,” Earnest said.

Few things will rile Republicans more than unilateral White House action on such a contentious issue, especially coming off of their midterm gains. Earnest acknowledged the White House’s displeasure with the election results while describing them as a call for more movement in Washington.

“[Voters] want their elected representatives in Washington, D.C. to get some results, and we haven’t seen a lot of results over the last two years in the United States Congress in particular,” Earnest said.

It’s a fine line given the departing Democratic Senate majority, but the White House wants to cast Republicans – who have internal splits on this issue – as the main reason for legislative delays and justify executive action now that they’ve won more power. Leading Republicans caution that such a confrontation would be playing with fire.

“If we get sidetracked with old ideological fights and holding each other accountable for long-held differences, we’re not going to make much progress,” Earnest said when asked about Senator Mitch McConnell’s warning that immigration executive action is “like waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

Republicans could respond with several tactics. The attorney general oversees the legal argument Obama will make for his authority to take action under current immigration law, and Republicans could block the Senate confirmation of Loretta Lynch, who Obama tapped to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. The could also withhold funding, though another shutdown looks unlikely, or even supersede Obama with a new immigration bill, which the president has always said he favors over acting on his own.

The White House is feeling heat from the left on the details of their executive action plan, even though they’re not yet known. Activists and immigrant groups shared a recent New York Times editorial’s fear that the plan won’t go far enough in the face of sure opposition. They argue that if the fight’s inevitable, it might as well be over a strong position.

“So why not be unapologetic, go bold, and really protect millions of our families that are waiting for the president to act,” said Cristina Jimenez, the managing director of the youth immigration activist group United We Dream, in an interview with Jorge Ramos.

A potential plan allowing upwards of 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. could be cut to a couple million or less as the president focuses on smaller slices of the nation’s 11 million undocumented.

The late Congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan, would not be proud of her fellow Democrat, President Barack Hussein Obama.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform wrangled with the topic of Illegal Immigration for six years. President Clinton appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. Rep. Jordan was a leader in the Civil Rights Movement, a Professor of Ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. Immigration System. On the issue of Illegal Immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful Immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Rep. Jordan recognized the  dangerous illegality of “Unlawful Immigration”.

Let’s pretend I broke into your house.  When you discover me there, you insist I leave.  But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think? 

Is this a behavior we should be rewarding?

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about this whole “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I used to be a VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3.  Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

So, let’s take this one step at a time.  Secure our borders.  Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws.  And, if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws.  America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

As the diseases, which the Mexican Munchkin Migration brought in with them have warned us, a wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now.  All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol Hill, need to quit playing political games.  The safety of America is at stake .  SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

Until He Comes,


The Shutdown: The Blame is Obama’s. Period.

chickenlittleSo, will this be the day that Boehner or McConnell go ahead and end the Government Shutdown, capitulating to the Petulant President, completing the caving-in process and once again selling out the Conservative Base of the Republican Party?

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, because their failures yesterday sure weren’t from a lack of trying, as The New York Times reports…

With the federal government on the brink of a default, a House Republican effort to end the shutdown and extend the Treasury’s borrowing authority collapsed Tuesday night as a major credit agency warned that the United States was on the verge of a costly ratings downgrade.

After the failure of the House Republican leadership to find enough support for its latest proposal to end the fiscal crisis, the Senate’s Democratic and Republican leaders immediately restarted negotiations to find a bipartisan path forward. A spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Mr. Reid was “optimistic that an agreement is within reach” with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

With so little time left, chances rose that a resolution would not be approved by Congress and sent to President Obama before Thursday, when the government is left with only its cash on hand to pay the nation’s bills.

“It’s very, very serious,” warned Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “Republicans have to understand we have lost this battle, as I predicted weeks ago, that we would not b able to win because we were demanding something that was not achievable.”

A day that was supposed to bring Washington to the edge of resolving the fiscal showdown instead seemed to bring chaos and retrenching. And a bitter fight that had begun over stripping money from the president’s signature health care law had essentially descended in the House into one over whether lawmakers and their staff members would pay the full cost of their health insurance premiums, unlike most workers at American companies, and how to restrict the administration from using flexibility to extend the debt limit beyond a fixed deadline.

Even so, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, and his leadership team failed in repeated, daylong attempts to bring their troops behind any bill that would reopen the government and extend the Treasury’s debt limit on terms significantly reduced from their original push against funding for the health care law. The House’s hard-core conservatives and some more pragmatic Republicans were nearing open revolt, and the leadership was forced twice to back away from proposals it had floated, the second time sending lawmakers home for the night to await a decision on how to proceed Wednesday.

So, as this new Soap Opera, “While Congress Turns”, proceeds, all attention has been diverted from the the individual who is actually responsible for this unholy mess, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

His refusal to negotiate..about anything…was brought into focus yesterday by, of all people, Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (a Clinton Loyalist).speaking at a Breakfast Meeting

“We govern either by leadership or crisis. . . . If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,” Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. “Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.”

Which raised the obvious question: What does this say about the president’s leadership?

Several observations ensued. “This town has gotten a lot meaner in the last few years.” Relationships have deteriorated. Redistricting into safe seats hasn’t helped. Neither has the explosion of money in campaigns, or the elimination of earmarks. (Negotiating one Clinton budget, Panetta recalled, “I think I sold about six bridges to get there.”)

Then, to Obama. “This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.”

Next came the “but” — without a name but with a clear message. “You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process . . . that’s what governing is all about.”

The difference between “Bubba” Clinton and “Scooter” Obama is a huge one. As Panetta points out, Bubba is a people person. Scooter is not. As long as Obama has himself, he will never be alone.

Bubba is the kind of guy whom, despite the fact that he’s a Liberal Democrat and morally reprehensible,  you could sit next to, at the counter at the Waffle House, and have a pleasant conversation with.

On the other hand, in Obama’s eyes, we are all filthy Capitalistic Colonials…oppressive, brutish people, whose antiquated system of ethics and values, based on American Christianity and Patriotism, needs to be “radically changed” by social experimentation, Executive Order, and huge, government-expanding laws, which nobody wants, such as the so-far-disastrous “Affordable Care Act”, passed in the middle of the night by a Congress, controlled by mindless minions, who, to this day, have no idea what is in the huge, horrible, life-changing bill that they passed.

The schadenfreude I have been experiencing, through watching the reactions of the young and dumb, when they realize that they are actually going to have to pay money for Obamacare Coverage, is priceless.

But, I digress…

I truly believe that Obama has never liked the concept of America. As others have written, he views our Blessed Land as being “just another flawed country”.

And now, having ascended to the Presidency, the punitive measures he has taken against our veterans and other citizens, by needlessly blocking admittance to our open-air National Parks and Monuments, show his true feelings toward the very Americans that he is supposed to be serving and protecting, in no uncertain terms.

As we head toward the “Fiscal Cliff”, if you want to know who the Head Lemming is…I’ll give you a clue: His name used to be Barry Soetoro.  

Until He Comes,


The Shutdown: Clowns to the Left of Me…Jokers to the “Right”

clowncarAs the Government Shutdown wanes on, polls are coming out, seemingly every day, blaming the 17% Shutdown on Congress. Heck, some are even actually laying the blame on the shoulders of President Barack Hussein Obama, where is most certainly belongs.

As yesterday ended, Congress found themselves still without any sort of agreement, as the Wall Street Journal reports…

Top Senate leaders said they were within striking distance of an agreement Monday to reopen the federal government and defuse a looming debt crisis just days before the U.S. could run out of money to pay its bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said on the Senate floor that the leaders had made “tremendous progress” toward a deal and that he was hopeful Tuesday would be a “bright day.” The Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, seconded Mr. Reid’s optimism. “We’ve had a good day,” he said.

The White House postponed a planned afternoon meeting of congressional leaders with President Barack Obama, saying the schedule change would give Senate leaders time to hash out a deal.

The latest proposal would reopen the government at current spending levels until Jan. 15 and extend the federal borrowing limit until early February, according to aides familiar with the talks. Lawmakers also would begin longer-term negotiations on the budget, with the task of reaching an agreement by Dec. 13.

Even before the deal was unveiled, it provoked grumbling Monday night among restive House Republicans. Mr. McConnell said Monday he expected to “get a result that will be acceptable to both sides.”

By setting up yet another series of fiscal deadlines, the agreement, if embraced, would carry the hallmark of other deadline-driven deals that have become typical of the increasingly polarized Capitol.

“Everybody realizes that whatever happens, we’re going to be litigating this another day,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Senate GOP leadership.

…Republicans who entered the budget battle determined to gut the health law have steadily scaled back their demands in the face of Democratic resistance. Still, many could find it hard to accept the Senate proposal, especially if it makes no changes to the health law.

Some House Republicans would likely resist the deal, putting House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) in a tight spot.

Mr. Boehner could face a rebellion from the House’s most fiscally conservative lawmakers, many of whom were elected with tea-party support. That would force Mr. Boehner to rely on Democrats to pass the Senate measure.

The lack of immediate spending cuts, as well as the absence of major changes to the health law, could prompt conservative opposition.

“I can’t vote for something that doesn’t have substantive spending cuts right now,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas).

Many House Republicans declined to comment until they saw the final Senate proposal. Some still were smarting from Mr. Obama’s decision to end discussions with them on Friday, which effectively sidelined the House GOP and accelerated talks in the Senate. The House offer abandoned many of the GOP’s initial policy demands. It would have raised the debt ceiling for six weeks without making other policy changes. But it didn’t appear to contain any explicit agreement to reopen the government immediately.

“We believed that we could have worked with the president,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R., Texas) “and then the president dropped us like a hot potato.”

There is actually more animus from the House Republicans toward the RINOs in the Senate, than the WSJ alluded to, as Breitbart.com tells us…

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chair of the House Budget Committee, told conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes Monday morning that House Republicans had demanded a one-year delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate, along with an end to congressional exemptions, while offering a six-week debt ceiling hike to allow room for negotiations on broader budget issues. The offer was made to President Barack Obama last Thursday.

President Obama, said Ryan, listened but declined to respond. In the meantime, Ryan said, it became clear the president was negotiating separately to obtain more favorable terms from Senate Republicans, trying to “jam” the House Republicans in the process. Ryan told Sykes that Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had “overplayed their hand” in attempting to prolong the crisis to maximize political damage to Republicans.

Ryan described the delay to the individual mandate as an “obvious” step to take, given that technical issues with the Obamacare exchanges might prevent the mandate from being enforced at all. “We could have spent the weekend putting an agreement together that says we’re gonna deal with the debt, we’re gonna deal with this economy, and we’re gonna fix these big flaws in Obamacare, or at least give people delays in these penalties.”

While Ryan actually makes a good point, concerning delaying the Individual Mandate, that is like using a slingshot to bring down an elephant.

The fact of the matter is that Americans do not want Obamacare…period…as proven by the fact that only 51,000 nationally, signed up for Obamacare in its first week.

That is less Americans than attend a College or Professional Football Game.

Evidently, the Manchurian President feels like he can more easily con the old RINO’s in the Senate, like McConnell, McCain, and Graham, who have been publicly bashing Conservatives for a while now, including the last week, than he can Cryin’ John and Company, in the House.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like you and me, are forced to watch these clowns and jokers, as they hurl accusations at one another, making Capital Hill and the White House sound more like a Daycare Center, rather than the Seat of Government.

Judging from the fact that Obama is the one who refuses to negotiate…

I’d say that somebody needs a nap.

Until He Comes,


Obama Sworn In. Continues Campaigning.

obamakingInauguration Day is over. Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is now President of these United States…again. But, is he Chief Executive…or Chief Campaigner?

Reuters.com reports that

Obama, who won a second term by defeating Republican Mitt Romney after a bitter campaign, will now face many of the same problems that dogged his first four years: persistently high unemployment, crushing government debt and a deep partisan divide. The war in Afghanistan, which Obama is winding down, has dragged on for over a decade.

He won an end-of-year fiscal battle against Republicans, whose poll numbers have continued to sag, and appears to have gotten them to back down, at least temporarily, from resisting an increase in the national debt ceiling.

And Obama faces a less-dire outlook than he did when he took office in 2009 at the height of a deep U.S. recession and world economic crisis. The economy is growing again, though slowly.

But he still faces a daunting array of challenges.

Among them is a fierce gun-control debate inspired by a school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, last month, a tragedy he invoked in his speech.

He said America must not rest until “all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Obama’s appeals for bipartisan cooperation will remind many Americans of his own failure to meet a key promise when he came to power – to act as a transformational leader who would fix a dysfunctional Washington.

His speech was light on foreign policy, with no mention of the West’s nuclear standoff with Iran, the civil war in Syria, dealings with an increasingly powerful China or confronting al Qaeda’s continued threat as exemplified by the recent deadly hostage crisis in Algeria.

But Obama said: “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully … We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who had declared in 2010 that his top goal was to deny Obama re-election, congratulated the president and expressed a willingness to work together, saying a second term “represents a fresh start.”

But some Republicans responded skeptically. “It was a very, very progressive speech, to put it in the best possible light,” said Republican strategist Rich Galen. “He’s not running for election anymore.”

But, Rich…what if that is all he knows how to do?

Back n November 28, 2012, as the fight over the Fiscal Cliff and Debt Ceiling was heating up, mediaite .com published the following insight:

Campaigning is comfortable territory for politicians and it is an especially cozy place for President Obama to occupy – he is an extraordinary campaigner and has spent the majority of his political career on the trail seeking one or the other public office. But is this an effective tool for governing? One need only look at Obama’s accomplishments in his first term to determine that it is not.

The president did not need to campaign to pass the stimulus act – his party’s electoral mandate after the 2008 elections was broad enough and the financial crisis so dire that virtually any measure the president advocated for would have been passed. The president did, however, need to push hard to pass his health care reform law – a program which remains deeply unpopular and whose future is forever in doubt.

The only reassurance that Democrats who support the Affordable Care Act have that the law will not be repealed (more likely, dramatically amended) by a future Republican administration or GOP-dominated Congress is that broad entitlement programs is rarely repealed after it is fully enacted because vulnerable members of the public become dependent on those programs. Those who hold this view cite the legislative accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” to support this thesis. But Democrats who idolize Johnson and seek parallels between the 36th president and the 44th have few to choose from.

Johnson was a famously passionate negotiator and a dogged pursuer of legislative compromise – so long as ultimate goals were agreed to at the end of the day. The tails of his tireless efforts to strike deals between members of his party and Republicans in Congress (some of whom he had better relationships with) remain legendary.

Numerous accounts, notably those of reporter Bob Woodward in The Price of Politics, suggest that Obama is more likely to alienate his opponents in a tense negotiation than to win them over. Woodward noted that Vice President Joe Biden was the administration’s link to Republican members of Congress when several debt reduction commissions were convened in Obama’s first term. Given the vice president’s demeanor during the 2012 campaign, and his concerns for his own political future, it is unlikely that Biden can serve in such a role in Obama’s second term.

An executive in the White House would not attempt to strike compromise by directing his supporters to harangue his Congressional opposition through Facebook posts and Twitter-based guilt trips. Such tactics are impediments to real compromise, but these are the tools of Obama’s first resort.

Republicans have signaled their willingness to compromise by increasing tax rates on high earners and Democrats have begun to see the light on the need for dramatic reforms to entitlement programs. But the willingness to compromise does not automatically translate into a forthcoming bargain. The president seems set on making the political environment toxic and to make compromise less likely in order to secure the notion that he won a mandate in November.

It was announced recently that Obama for America was regrouping as Organizing for America, Obama’s very own bunch of Brown Shirts, who would provide”feet on the ground”  in an effort to intimidate and garner public support for Obama’s pet projects.

To recap…America has a divisive leader who has substituted perpetual campaigning for effective governance of our country, assisted by his own personal army of sycophantic supporters.

While the GOP Establishment are sounding like Neville Chamberlain.

Until He Comes,


Haggling Over Hagel

obamahagelPresident Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) has presented his choice for United States Secretary of Defense. And, the consensus, from both sides of the aisle, is that ol’ Scooter is either a) unbelievably arrogant,  b) mad with power, or c) just plain nuts.

I choose, d) all of the above.

The New York Times has the story:

Chuck Hagel appears to have weathered a concerted and vocal campaign to derail his chances for defense secretary, with President Obama likely to nominate him as early as next week, administration and Congressional officials said Friday.

Since Mr. Hagel’s name emerged as a candidate for the Pentagon in early December, conservatives, pro-Israel groups and gay rights organizations have raised objections to his views on Israel and Iran, as well as disparaging comments he made about a gay former diplomat.

Administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama has not made a final decision or offered Mr. Hagel the job. But people on Capitol Hill who know Mr. Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, have said that all signs were pointing to his selection.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, Mr. Obama defended Mr. Hagel from the criticism, saying that while he had not decided on a defense secretary, Mr. Hagel was a “patriot” and that nothing in his record would disqualify him for the job.

The president could announce the selection as early as Monday, officials said, after returning from a vacation in Hawaii. That would come days before a visit to Washington by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, during which he and Mr. Obama are expected to discuss options for American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

Mr. Hagel, should he be named by Mr. Obama, will most likely be comfortable with what Pentagon officials say is a White House desire to draw down the remaining 66,000 troops as quickly as conditions allow.

“One of the reasons we’re in trouble in Afghanistan is because we went well beyond our mission,” Mr. Hagel told Robert Nolan, an editor and television producer, in May 2012 for a PBS series on foreign policy. “And now, 12 years later, we’re not sure what our mission is.”

Critics faulted Mr. Hagel for referring to pro-Israel lobbying groups as the “Jewish lobby,” and said he offered inadequate support for Israel and was soft on Iran. He apologized last month for saying 14 years ago that President Bill Clinton’s nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg, James C. Hormel, was not qualified because he was “openly, aggressively gay.”

Just how bad a choice is Chuck Nagel?  He’s horrible.

In an article published on Christmas Eve in The Weekly Standard, titled, “The Hagel Thesis”, Bill Kristol wrote:

…Anti-Israel propagandists are thrilled. Stephen Walt, junior partner of the better-known Israel-hater John Mearsheimer, writes that if President Obama nominates Hagel, it will be “a smart move.” Why? Because, “unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby.” Indeed, a Hagel pick would “pay back Benjamin Netanyahu for all the ‘cooperation’ Obama received from him during the first term.” Furthermore, Walt writes approvingly, Hagel is “generally thought to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran.”

Hagel certainly does have anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides. While still a senator, Hagel said that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Hagel, one of only two senators who voted in 2001 against renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, also voted in 2007 against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization and opposed the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.

Hagel also has a record of consistent hostility to Israel over the last decade. He boasted in 2008 that, unlike his peers, he wasn’t intimidated by “the Jewish lobby.” The next year, he signed a letter urging President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas. Later in 2009, he revisited another of his longstanding foreign policy fixations​—​his belief in the good intentions of the Assad regime​—​and told a J Street conference, “I believe there is a real possibility of a shift in Syria’s strategic thinking and policies. .  .  . Syria wants to talk​—​at the highest levels​—​and everything is on the table.”

All of this helps explain why, when Hagel was appointed to an advisory board at the beginning of Obama’s first term, Ira Forman, Obama’s 2008 campaign Jewish outreach director and former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, acknowledged, “If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we’d have real concerns.”

Well, secretary of defense is a policy role. President Obama should have real concerns about putting him there. Democratic senators should have real concerns about confirming Hagel if President Obama is foolish enough to nominate him. There are, after all, plenty of Obama-supporting potential nominees for secretary of defense who are qualified for the job. Some have already served in the Defense Department in Obama’s first term, like Deputy Secretary Ash Carter and former undersecretary Michelle Flournoy. The Weekly Standard would expect to differ with such nominees on many issues. But they wouldn’t be out on the fringes like Chuck Hagel.

Why is President Obama tempted by the prospect of nominating Hagel? Because Hagel was a Republican senator. The Obama political types think they’d get credit for bipartisanship by appointing Hagel. And they think they would avoid a confirmation fight because Hagel’s former GOP colleagues wouldn’t dare oppose him: senatorial courtesy, party solidarity, and all that.

Whether Hagel is nominated is above all a test for President Obama. Is he serious about having Israel’s back? Is he serious about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

It’s a test as well for pro-Israel, anti-nuclear-Iran Democrats. Will they go along with a major policy role for a man they know shouldn’t be in one?

But a Hagel nomination is also a test for Republicans. Does senatorial clubbiness trump the good of the country? Do former party ties trump the importance of having a sensible and mainstream secretary of defense over the next four years?

NO, Bill…they don’t.

It is very apparent that Obama is rubbing our squishy GOP Establishments’ noses in it, with the nomination of this RINO Extraordinaire. 

It’s a win-win situation for ol’ Scooter. He’s got a Secretary of Defense who is as stupid about Foreign Policy as he is, and, one who shares the same ig’nant “Smart Power!” philosophy: 

Alienate our Allies. Embrace our Enemies.

If Boehner, McConnell, and the rest of the Moderate Republicans do not shout this abomination of a nomination down…quickly, they might as well register as Democrats, and get it over with.

Because, at this point, speaking as a member of the ignored Conservative Base, they are acting as if they have more in common with them than us, anyway.

Until He Comes,