Posts Tagged ‘Chicago’

Wisonsin Democrats Fled To Illinois To Avoid Democracy. What’s THAT State Like With Union Pension Problems???

February 22, 2011

Where are the Democrat politicians who literally fled the state so they wouldn’t have to perform their democratic duty as members of a democracy and simply show up to VOTE?  You know, represent the people by voting like people who aren’t Marxist-fascists are supposed to do?

From the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinal:

The high political drama comes as the standoff on the politically charged bill drags on, Democratic senators hide out in Illinois, a throng of tens of thousands demonstrate at the Capitol, and national figures weigh in on the events.

Now why are they doing that?  Because Republicans are trying to deal with the massive state budget crisis and union pensions that have crippled the state.  And Democrats who ran on “hope and change” are willing to violate the democratic process in every single way, shape or form to preserve the utterly failed status quo.

Okay.  So Wisconsin Democrats don’t want to deal with the pension crisis in their financial broke state and so they ran off to Illinois.

What’s going on to Illinois?  I mean, surely when you flee to a better state, the state of affairs should at least be better than the one you’re fleeing from, right???

Wrong.  Thanks exclusively to Democrats – including one Barack Hussein Obama who helped in the destruction both as a state senator and as a US Senator – Illinois is on the verge of total collapse:

Illinois public pension fund crisis worsens
Dennis Byrne on 11.01.10 at 11:59 AM

Before you vote on Tuesday, you should read this to get a better understanding of one of the biggest problems facing Illinois.

Illinois’ unfunded pension liability, already the worst in the nation, is expected to spiral to even higher levels because the financially desperate funds are revising their investment goals downward.

The funds are desperate on more than one front. They are not getting their monthly contributions from the state on a timely basis. And those delays are forcing them to sell fund assets at an annualized rate approaching 10 percent to pay benefits to retirees. The one-two punch is deflating their bottom line.

Gov. Pat Quinn and the Illinois Legislature don’t intend to sit around and do nothing. What they’re likely to do, a mere two days after the election, is what they’ve always done: Borrow more.

The rising price tags for Illinois taxpayers come as the Illinois Senate is set to reconvene Thursday, atGov. Pat Quinn’s request, to consider whether to borrow to meet annual pension obligations once again. The state would issue bonds for up to $4.1 billion in state contributions to the five funds in fiscal 2011, which began July 1.

The move was approved by the House on May 25 but was not called for a vote in the Senate becauseDemocrats were not able to get the full support of their ranks needed for a three-fifths majority, and theRepublicans were not willing to step in.

Some observers say not much has changed in the intervening time.

But if the state does decide to borrow again, it will come atop more than $13 billion in previous borrowing for annual pension obligations, a portion of which ended up getting skimmed off for operating expenses during the tenure of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

So, here’s the deal: A lame duck legislature and possibly a lame duck governor plan to put us deeper in debt. Even before the smoke from the election clears. Sound familiar?

Here are the basics on Illinois’ three largest retirement funds.

What did these Marxist Wisconsin Democrats do?  They ran home to their big fat Marxist Mama in Chicago.  And that big fat woman will wrap her big fat flabby arms around her children from Wisconsin and welcome them into the pig trough of union and big Democrat machine money she calls her home, sweet home.

Don’t forget the hellhole the Wisconsin Democrats ran to.  Because Democrats all over the country will be bringing the mega-disasters of states like Illinois to your door if you give them the chance.

Election Fraud: If You Vote Democrat, You Are A Corrupt Dishonest Cheat By Proxy

October 29, 2010

Everyone could see it right in front of them on live television.  Florida Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink was caught red-handed cheating in a debate.  Her excuse?  She blamed her Republican opponent (i.e., “blame Bush!).

Corrupt Democrat voter machine ACORN never truly dies.  It just changes its name.

In previous elections, any race that was close would be stolen from Republicans by Democrat cheating.  As Al Franken being elected on the illegally-cast votes of incarcerated convicts serves to demonstrate.

But that is no longer the case.  Now, Democrats are behind by larger margins due to their incredibly failed and incredibly fascist policies.  So they have to cheat bigger than ever before to steal elections.

There are all kinds of other examples to show that the Democrat Party is the party of cheating and corruption.

There are the strange goings-ons inside the voting machines in Nevada, which have a mysterious tendency to prompt voters to select Harry Reid.

Add to that the SEIU pro-Democrat voter-stuffing shenanigans, with clear evidence of massive fraud.

Add to that the 250 absentee ballots the Republican candidate tracked to a vacant lot.

Add to that an Ohio public high school that bussed students during school hours to vote after being given a ballot that ONLY had Democrats on it.  After which they were treated to ice cream.

Add to that the evidence in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that the Democrat candidate is flooding the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

Add to that voting machines in North Carolina which are “voting” for Democrats even when that is the exact opposite of what voters intend.  Which is simply the icing on the cake of all kinds of other fraud going on there.

Add to that Chicago, where Republicans are being disenfranchised of their right to vote by corrupt Democrat organizations.

Add to that still more corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania who created a fictitious “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office” to commit voter fraud.

Add to that a public state university in Wisconsin that illegally urged students and faculty to get out and help the Democrat cause.

Add to that a woman who is literally under criminal indictment for past voter fraud with liberal A.C.O.R.N. now heading up yet another corrupt liberal voter fraud group.

Add to that Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer both illegally and immorally requesting public high school teachers to send public school kids to volunteer for her campaign.

Add to that a Democrat organization in Virginia “shocked” that their free beer in exchange for votes was actually criminal.

Add to that the woman named Gabby Mercer with the Republican “Jan Brewer for Governor” sign painted on the rear window of her car getting a big rock thrown through that window in a clear act of political intimidation.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee committing voter fraud at a polling place.

Add to that First Lady Michelle Obama, who had committed voter fraud in the same way.

Add to that forged ballots and illegals registering to vote for Democrats via groups such as Mi Familia Vota, Border Action, and Faith.Hope.Vote!  Which all have ties to the SEIU.

Add to that a staffer for a long-time Arizona Democrat who was caught stealing the yard signs featuring his Republican opponent (see also here for the KGUN 9 story, at least until they delete it).

Add to that illegal immigrants who are actively working to undermine the vote in Washington State for Democrats.  Even as liberal Democrat bastions such as San Fransisco are currently seeking to undermine the sanctity of citizens and the vote altogether.

Add to that Democrat states such as New York and Illinois disenfranchising military service members – who vote heavily Republican – of the right to vote in violation of the law.

Add to that campaign ads by Democrat candidates such as Rep. Alan Grayson which so shockingly and deliberately misrepresent the truth that even MSNBC are taking them to the woodshed for their gross lies.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, accepting campaign contributions in clear violation of his own promise from banks that his committee regulates.

Add to that the incredibly vicious and misogynist attack against Republican Christine O’Donnell, as a man was paid to smear her with allegations of a one-night stand (i.e., “feminists” despise successful conservative women).

Add to that the earlier clear election corruption by the Obama administration in offering Democrats Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff jobs not to run against candidates preferred by the regime in clear violation of the law.

Nancy Pelosi falsely promised to “drain the swamp.”  Instead, her party is swimming in it.

But it’s not just in campaigning that Democrats are pathologically dishonest frauds; it is in governing.

There was the Generational Fraud Act otherwise known as the stimulus that was sold as preventing unemployment from rising above 8%.  What is it now?

There was the “sales pitch” that promised all sorts of “shovel-ready jobs.”  The problem is that there NEVER WERE any such jobs.  And now we have the admission that there never WERE any “shovel-ready jobs” coming right out of the lying mouth of the liar-in-chief himself.

There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera.  And every single one of those promises was just an obscene lie.

Lately we see the Obama administration playing all kinds of monkey games with the TARP program finances, according to the TARP inspector general.

That’s just the way the party behind fifty-two million dead babies rolls.  I suppose you just shouldn’t expect baby killers to be decent people.

To be a Democrat today is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies.  If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy.  Just embrace it.  It is what you vote for.  It is what you support.  It is who and what you are.  And shame on you.

Neverending Blame Bush Insanity: Democrat Alex Sink Obviously Cheats In Debate, Then Blames It On Republican Opponent

October 27, 2010

Just another of oh-so-many proofs that this election is a plebiscite on national integrity.  If we as a nation are without honor, decency, honor, or virtue, then we will vote for Democrats.

Democratic candidate cheats in Florida debate, then blames opponent for it
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: October 26th, 2010

This is pretty extraordinary. Alex Sink, locked in a tight gubernatorial race in Florida with Rick Scott, reads a message on a Droid shown to her by her make-up artist. That’s against the CNN debate rules. It’s cheating. Scott notices what she’s doing and blows the whistle.

Watch the video:


According to The St Petersburg Times, the message said:

The attorney who [w]on the Sykes suit said alex sink did nothing wrong. Tell not to let him keep talking about her.

Sink was clearly being surreptitious and, far from declining to read the message once she saw it related to the debate, she actively participated in the subterfuge. She was content to be coached and her body language indicates she knew she was doing something wrong.

That’s bad enough. What’s really disgraceful is what she does afterwards. She supposedly fires an aide (initially unnamed but now identified as Brian May, the person who apparently signed the campaign’s agreement to the debate rules) and issues a statement saying this:

While he [the aide] told me it was out of anger with Rick Scott’s repeated distortion of facts, it was a foolish thing to do.

In the annals of non-apology apologies, this takes some beating. The candidate cheats. There is no admission of personal responsibility at all and an aide is blamed. Then she goes one step further, justifying an aide’s ‘foolish’ actions as being motivated by ‘anger’ with her opponent’s ‘repeated distortion of facts’.

Okaaaay. So the candidate’s position is that she didn’t cheat but anyway it’s all her opponent’s fault? It’s the kind of thing few parents would let a six-year-old get away with.

No wonder so many Americans are so disillusioned with their politicians.

Add to that the strange goings-ons inside the voting machines in Nevada, which have a mysterious tendency to prompt voters to select Harry Reid.

Add to that the SEIU pro-Democrat voter-stuffing shenanigans, with clear evidence of massive fraud.

Add to that the 250 absentee ballots the Republican candidate tracked to a vacant lot.

Add to that the evidence in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that the Democrat candidate is flooding the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

Add to that voting machines in North Carolina which are “voting” for Democrats even when that is the exact opposite of what voters intend.  Which is simply the icing on the cake of all kinds of other fraud going on there.

Add to that Chicago, where Republicans are being disenfranchised of their right to vote by corrupt Democrat organizations.

Add to that still more corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania who created a fictitious “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office” to commit voter fraud.

Add to that a woman who is literally under criminal indictment for past voter fraud with liberal A.C.O.R.N. now heading up yet another corrupt liberal voter fraud group.

Add to that Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer both illegally and immorally requesting public high school teachers to send public school kids to volunteer for her campaign.

Add to that a Democrat organization in Virginia “shocked” that their free beer in exchange for votes was actually criminal.

Add to that illegal immigrants who are actively working to undermine the vote in Washington State for Democrats.  Even as liberal Democrat bastions such as San Fransisco are currently seeking to undermine the sanctity of citizens and the vote altogether.

Add to that campaign ads by Democrat candidates such as Rep. Alan Grayson which so shockingly and deliberately misrepresent the truth that even MSNBC are taking them to the woodshed for their gross lies.

To be a Democrat is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies.  If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy.  Just embrace it.  It’s who and what you are.  And shame on you.

And it’s not just in campaigning that Democrats are pathologically dishonest frauds; it is in governing.

There was the Generational Fraud Act otherwise known as the stimulus that was sold as preventing unemployment from rising above 8%.  What is it now?

There was the “sales pitch” that promised all sorts of “shovel-ready jobs.”  The problem is that there NEVER WERE any such jobs.  And now we have the admission that there never WERE any “shovel-ready jobs” coming right out of the lying mouth of the liar-in-chief himself.

There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera.  And every single one of those promises was just a filthy lie.

Lately we see the Obama administration playing all kinds of monkey games with the TARP program finances, according to the TARP inspector general.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are liars without shame or dignity.

Vote them out on November 2.

White House Whitewash Sestak Cover-Story Falling Apart

June 1, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:

“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”

So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months.  That much is correct.

What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.”  It isn’t reasonable at all.

First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.

The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.”  As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.”  And these discussions took place between June and July.  Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.

So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton.  Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff.  The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak.  Which member of the White House staff?  When?  And regarding what?

And the memo also says:

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”

Wow.  They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.

But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.

Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board.  Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?

May 29, 2010
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky

Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton.  And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]


The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.

An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.

How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell?  And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???

It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer.  It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer.  And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.

You want to know what makes a lot more sense?  The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.

For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.”  A federal job is the kind of thing that pays.  2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.”  3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.

The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points.  And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion.  And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak.  And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.

And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.

This is clearly a cover story.

Something really stinky is going on.

This is clearly a serious violation of the law.

And this is also part of a clear PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Sestak-gate: White House Offered Romanoff Job, Too
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:18 PM
By Jim Meyers

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And do I need to invoke the name of “Blagojevich” and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate Seat?

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

Obama To Skip Out On Arlington Memorial Day Ceremony

May 28, 2010

From KGO Radio:

“Obama will be on vacation in Chicago this Memorial Day, instead of presiding over Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington. This may be the first time since the Civil War that a president will not pay respect to the veterans passed.”

What a slimeball.

Somebody wrote, “Good! I’m relieved that the graves of brave men and women won’t be desecrated.”

And he might be right.  But the paradox here is that the fact that Obama isn’t going is proof that he doesn’t deserve to go in the first place.

Here’s the story, which cites the Washington Post report that Obama will skip the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington:

President Obama’s Memorial Day Plans, Skip Arlington, Vacation In Chicago
By Shannon Bell

President Obama’s Memorial Day Weekend plans include skipping Arlington,vacation in Chicago, you know, because he hasn’t been there in a while. The mainstream media sure has a nifty way of spinning the fact that Obama’s skipping Arlington services on Memorial Day in a time of war no less to vacation in Chicago.

The Washington Post says Obama’s skipping Arlington on Memorial Day to keep a “campaign promise.” One of his many promises during the campaign of 2008 was that he would visit Chicago every six weeks or so. He hasn’t been there for a stay since February of 2009.

Once again Obama’s lack of good decision making shines through. He’s the Commander in Chief whether he or we like it or not. Memorial Day comes but once a year, Arlington is where the President of the United States needs to spend his time. But Obama’s Memorial Day plans, skipping Arlington, vacationing in Chicago.

It’s only Memorial Day. The day when we honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. It’s only Arlington National Cemetery. Quite possibly the most hallowed and sacred piece of realestate in the country. He’s only the Commander in Chief. The leader of our armed forces who commands their respect.

But hey. If you need a break take it when you can get it, right? Obama hasn’t had many opportunities to fly home to Chicago. There was that one time he took Michelle out dancing and to the theater. Oh wait that was New York. Well how about a couple weeks ago when he took the time to spend the weekend there when he should have been attending to the oil spill? Did I miss that one too? You’re right, that was a weekend getaway to a spa in North Carolina.

What about his numerous golf outings, or what about the Obama’s vacation last year to the beach? He couldn’t have taken one of those “opportunities?” Nope. Obama’s Memorial day plans, skipping Arlington , vacationing in Chicago. Priorities Mr. President, priorities.

Obama basically hasn’t kept any of his other promises.  Why is his promise to vacation in Chicago more important than his duty to honor the fallen soldiers in wars past as well as the one he’s sending troops to die in now?

The problem is that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is in Arlington, not in Chicago.  Unless Obama wants to have one made out of Styrofoam like those tacky Grecian columns he once used.

And, oh, yeah.  That golf thing.  After the media criticized George Bush for playing gold while his troops were fighting for their lives, Obama has played golf more in one year than Bush did in eight years.  In fact, Obama was playing golf when three of the soldiers under his command were sacrificing their lives on the battlefield.

This is a president who has ordered men to their deaths in Afghanistan.  The least he can do for those who’ve died under his direction is lay a freaking wreath on a freaking tomb on one special freaking day of the year.

Shame on him.

Slimeball.

You know if it were Teleprompter Day, Obama would be there to lay that damn wreath to honor the only device that keeps him from looking like the complete jabbering fool that he truly is.

Barack Obama apparently won’t be there (unless political pressure shames him into canceling his “vacation”), but please help me – even if you’ve disagreed with everything I’ve said about Obama – in doing your darnedest to honor our heroic warriors, be they young or old, living or dead.

Update, May 31, 2010.  I have been challenged on the claim that Obama is the first president since the Civil War to skip Arlington.  I checked into it, and stand corrected.  That said, many of those who tell me to check my facts should likewise check their facts.

For instance, Farrow says:

Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all missed the wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery at one time or another

Moreover, President Obama will lay a wreath tomorrow (Memorial Day) at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.

Well, yeah.  But Bush II missed Arlington only one time – when he honored the veterans who had fallen on the beaches of Normandy in France.  That’s a pretty good reason to “miss.”  Much better than Obama’s promise to vacation in Chicago more.

With the “blame Bush” climate, this is one thing you can’t “blame Bush” for.

George H.W. Bush missed ceremonies at Arlington, but he was a decorated combat veteran of World War II.  Barack Obama, by contrast, is not a veteran, did not serve in combat, and has not been decorated for anything.

When Barack Obama is decorated for heroism in combat, like Bush I was when he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, he can skip Arlington, which honors such heroes.  Until then, an excuse that cites George H.W. Bush falls apart rather pathetically.

One of the occasions Regan missed as President occurred while he was recovering from wounds incurred after having nearly been assassinated.  You might cut him some slack for that one.  He also attended a summit meeting, and was out of the country dealing with the Soviet Union, during wreath-laying ceremonies.  In 1987, Reagan was in Camp David – working on a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets.  Again, hopefully you’ll cut him some slack for working to end nuclear Armageddon.

As a further update, Obama did not actually participate in the Memorial Day event in Chicago.  It was canceled due to rain.  Which means that maybe God Himself doesn’t think Obama deserves to honor our warriors.  End update.

White House Implosion Approaching

March 8, 2010

We’re seeing growing sings that all is most certainly not well in the Camelot Part Deux that liberals wanted to recreate in the Obama White House.  Obama himself is cracking under the stress, smoking too much and drinking too much.  I think we’d all like it if the man who had the responsibility of imposing his will on an Iran determined to develop nuclear ICBMs had at least enough willpower to impose his will on the next pack of cigarettes.  Meanwhile, Obama’s Chicago-thug “fearsome foursome” who form his paranoid inner circle are taking all kinds of heat – and showing signs of meltdown from all the gear-clashing.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel – Mr. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” himself – has been under fire from liberals who want to blame him for the near-total failure Obama’s first year has been.  But Emanuel has some allies in the press as well, who have come out to make a strong defense (mayhap with Rahm’s help?) at the direct expense of Obama.  I mean, the mainstream media is blaming the failure of the Obama administration on Emanuel’s lack of discipline and management skills, while other parts of the mainstream media argue that Rahm Emanuel is the only thing preventing Obama from ending up worse than Jimmy Carter.  I mean, you know there are a lot of hurt feelings and dead bodies in closets at the White House with this stuff going on.

And now we see the glue is coming off the veneer of David Axelrod, too.

March 6, 2010
Obama Message Maven Finds Fingers Pointing at Him
By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON — David Axelrod was sitting at his desk on a recent afternoon — tie crooked, eyes droopy and looking more burdened than usual. He had just been watching some genius on MSNBC insist that he and President Obama’s other top aides were failing miserably and should be replaced.

Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,” he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.

Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House. Recent news reports have cast the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the administration’s chief pragmatist, and Mr. Axelrod, by implication, as something of a swooning loyalist. A “Moonie,” dismissed Mr. Axelrod’s close friend, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. Or as the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, joked, “the guy who walks in front of the president with rose petals.”

Still, it is a charge that infuriates Mr. Axelrod, the president’s closest aide, longest-serving adviser and political alter ego. “I guess I have been castigated for believing too deeply in the president,” he said, lapsing into the sarcasm he tends to deploy when playing defense.

No one has taken the perceived failings of the administration more personally or shown the strain as plainly as Mr. Axelrod, who as White House senior adviser oversees every aspect of how Mr. Obama is presented. As such, Mr. Axelrod, the president’s mustachioed message maven, has felt the brunt of criticism over what many view as the administration’s failure to clearly define and disseminate Mr. Obama’s agenda and accomplishments for the country.

“The Obama White House has lost the narrative in the way that the Obama campaign never did,” said James Morone, a political scientist at Brown University. “They essentially took the president’s great strength as a messenger and failed to use it smartly.”

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?”

That question has dogged Mr. Axelrod in recent months and has preoccupied Mr. Obama’s inner circle, fueling speculation that the vaunted “No Drama Obama” team might be fracturing. Not surprisingly, the White House has no patience with the notion.

“You guys want to fit people into boxes and categories that are just not accurate,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Mr. Axelrod would not discuss what counsel he offered to Mr. Obama, though he denies any “fissure with my buddy Rahm” and any charge that he is too infatuated with the president to recognize the political risks of his ambitious agenda.

“Believe me, if we were charting this administration as a political exercise, the first thing we would have done would not have been a massive recovery act, stabilizing the banks and helping to keep the auto companies from collapsing,” he said. “Those would not even be the first hundred things he would want to do.”

But Mr. Axelrod argued that the president, confronted with “breathtaking challenges,” did not have the luxury of moving more slowly or methodically.

In a lengthy interview in his office on Wednesday, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” He denounced the “rampant lack of responsibility” of people in Washington who refuse to solve problems, and cited the difficulty of trying to communicate through what he calls “the dirty filter” of a city suffused with the “every day is Election Day sort of mentality.”

When asked how he would assess his performance, Mr. Axelrod shrugged. “I’m not going to judge myself on that score,” he said. But then he shot back: “Have I succeeded in reversing a 30-year trend of skepticism and cynicism about government? I confess that I have not. Maybe next year.”

The criticism of the administration’s communication strategy — leveled by impatient Democrats, gleeful Republicans, bloggers and cable chatterers — clearly stings Mr. Axelrod, as well as the circle of family, friends and fans he has acquired over three decades in politics as a consultant and, before that, a reporter for The Chicago Tribune.

“Every time I hear that the White House is getting the message wrong, it breaks my heart,” said Mr. Axelrod’s sister, Joan, an educational therapist in Boston. “I know he agonizes.”

Ms. Axelrod says that while her brother is devoted to Mr. Obama, he is not a sycophant. She paused when asked whether he admired the president too much. “He is very, very loyal, sometimes to a fault,” she said.

Added Mr. Gibbs: “The list of people who have to deliver bad news to the president is very small, and David is first on that list. I’m probably second.”

Mr. Axelrod’s friends worry about the toll of his job — citing his diet (cold-cut-enriched), his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign), sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night), separation from family (most back home in Chicago) and the fact that at 55, he is considerably older than many of the wunderkind workaholics of the West Wing. He wakes at 6 in his rented condominium just blocks from the White House and typically returns around 11.

Unlike other presidential alter egos, Mr. Axelrod is not viewed as a surrogate “brain” (like Karl Rove), a suspicious outsider (like Dick Morris in the Clinton White House) or a co-president (James Baker in the first Bush White House). Sometimes portrayed as a bare-knuckled Chicago operative, he is also a bantering walrus of a man in mustard-stained sleeves who describes himself as a “kibbitzer,” not a “policy guy.”

Sitting at his desk next door to the Oval Office last week, he was tearing into a five-inch corned beef sandwich on rye with a Flintstone-size turkey drumstick waiting on deck. “I am the poster child for the president’s obesity program,” he said.

A few minutes later, Mr. Obama walked in unannounced, scattering two aides like startled pigeons. “Hey,” Mr. Axelrod said by way of greeting (no “sir” or “Mr. President.”) Mr. Obama surveyed the spread on Mr. Axelrod’s desk with a slight smirk.

“What is this, King Arthur’s court?” he asked, then pulled Mr. Axelrod aside to talk about a health care speech he was about to deliver.

Mr. Axelrod is often at the president’s side; he sits in on policy and national security meetings and is routinely the last person he talks to before making a decision. He directs every aspect of the administration’s external presentation, overseeing polls, focus groups and speeches and appearing on the Sunday shows. Mr. Emanuel describes Mr. Axelrod as “an integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.”

White House officials describe Mr. Axelrod’s focus as big themes rather than day-to-day sound bites. There has been no shortage of Democrats willing to second-guess his messaging approach.

“They made a big mistake right out of the box with the Inaugural Address,” said former Senator Bob Kerrey, adding that a president pledging bipartisanship should not have disparaged the previous administration in his speech, as many listeners believed Mr. Obama did.

Read the rest at the New York Times.

Of course, they are continuing to make the same mistake of blaming Bush over and over and over again on a daily basis over a year later.

And that does go to the core of the Obama failure: the inability to match his rhetoric with reality, or even his rhetoric with his own rhetoric.

The man who pledged bipartisanship and a transcendent ability to reach across the divide and bring the country together has blamed and demonized the Bush administration and the Republican Party every single time he “reached.”

The man who promised transparency, who promised repeatedly to open up the entire “bipartisan” health care negotiations on C-SPAN, has not never even bothered to try to do so (and dang I wish I could have seen the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, and various other acts of illegal political patronage being negotiated), but has routinely had closed door meetings which were not open to the press, the public, or certainly the Republicans.  Meanwhile, the Democrats have been so byzantine, so secretive, so wheeling-dealing, that even senior Democrats have had to acknowledge they were completely in the dark as to what in the sam hill was going on.

And of course now we have the same Obama who basically said that reconciliation was a totalitarian act of “simply majoritarian absolute power” that was both unconstitutional and as partisan and evil as Karl Rove is, now saying that it’s okay as long as he’s doing it “to maintain his strong presidency.”

That’s just health care.  You can take almost any other issue and find the same thing with Obama.  Foreign policy?  Take Renditions.  Take Eavesdropping programs.  Take the Patriot Act.  Take  Gitmo.  Take the surge strategy.  Take the Iraq War.  Take the  Iranian nuclear threat.  And now, take military tribunals.  In every single one of these cases Obama personally demonized the Bush position, and then did the same thing himself without ever once having the integrity to say that George Bush had been right and he had been wrong.  Energy policy?  Obama so completely abandoned his own stated energy policy promises that a senior Democrat was forced to say that Obama “is beginning not to be believable to me.”

I have to say I feel sorry for the messengers who are being hounded for not being able to get the White House message out: it’s full of lies and deceit; how do you make all the Obama lies look good without telling a whole bunch of other lies?

Then you’ve got the fact that a whole bunch of Democrats across the spectrum are just furious with the Obama administration for massively expensive policies that didn’t work and for sheer flagrant incompetence.

How do you make a turd look good?

The one word that most accurately frames this piece is, “Wah.”  The people who most successfully demagogued mainstream media narratives when it came to George Bush and Republicans are the biggest bunch of thin-skinned whining crybabies I’ve ever seen.  Someone else is ALWAYS to blame with these people.

And when they demonize Republicans for their criticisms when the Obama team has done nothing BUT demonize Bush and Republicans, it is beyond disgusting and even beyond despicable.

What couldn’t be more obvious about Obama’s inner circle – political rather than policy experts all – is that all they can do well is campaign.  So they constantly campaign in campaign mode, and then cry the moment anybody suggests they’re doing anything because of “politics.”  I mean, think about it: the same man who lambasts the press for their “every day is Election Day sort of mentality,” is the guy who is closer than anyone to Obama – and  who spends all his time as the “integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.

I mean, how DARE you people accurately describe us as what we are, and consider policies from the same uber-political perspective that WE consider them.  HOW DARE YOU!

The Obama inner circle lives in a bunker and embraces a “bunker-view mentality” to the world.  In contradiction to their statements to the contrary, they are hyper-hyper sensitive to any skepticism at all.  And their growing problem is that the nastiest skepticism of all isn’t coming from “the right” or from Fox News, but from their very own left and from media that should be in their pockets.

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before it happens, but this president and this inner White House circle are heading for a meltdown of epic proportions.

Barack Obama Oh-So Close To Being Jimmy Carter, Jr.

March 1, 2010

This article from a mainstream liberal does so many things.  1) It tells us the only thing that keeps Obama from already being the complete loser and failure Jimmy Carter was is Rahm Emanuel; 2) It tells us that Barack Obama has repeatedly ignored wise advice and paid attention to far-left liberal lunacy; and 3) It points out that the failure of health care isn’t Republican obstructionism, but Barry Hussein stupidity and his refusal to try to pass bills that Republicans could have supported.

I’m glad that even liberals are starting to recognize that this health care mess we’re in wasn’t the Republicans’ fault; it was Obama’s incompetence and hard-core liberal ideology.

Why Obama needs Rahm at the top

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, February 21, 2010; A13

Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel.

No, seriously.

It is the current fashion to blame President Obama’s disappointing first year on his chief of staff. “First, remove Rahm Emanuel,” writes Leslie Gelb in the Daily Beast, because he lacks “the management skills and discipline to run the White House.”

The Financial Times’s Ed Luce reports that the “famously irascible” Emanuel has “alienated many of Mr. Obama’s closest outside supporters,” while the New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons lumps Emanuel in with the “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency.”

They join liberal interests who despised Emanuel long before he branded them “retarded.” Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com, together with conservative activist Grover Norquist, demanded a Justice Department investigation into Emanuel, who is “far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the president.”

As Emanuel would say: What the [expletive deleted]?

Clearly, “Rahmbo” has no shortage of enemies in this town, and with Obama’s approval rating dipping below 50 percent, they have ammunition. But sacking Emanuel is the last thing the president should do.

Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.

Obama chose the profane former Clinton adviser for a reason. Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic Caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes.

Obama’s problem is that his other confidants — particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod — are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics.

The president would have been better off heeding Emanuel’s counsel. For example, Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn’t politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn’t met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco.

Obama’s greatest mistake was failing to listen to Emanuel on health care. Early on, Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults, that could win some Republican support. He opposed the public option as a needless distraction.

The president disregarded that strategy and sided with Capitol Hill liberals who hoped to ram a larger, less popular bill through Congress with Democratic votes only. The result was, as the world now knows, disastrous.

Had it gone Emanuel’s way, a politically popular health-care bill would have passed long ago, leaving plenty of time for other attractive priorities, such as efforts to make college more affordable. We would have seen a continuation of the momentum of the first half of 2009, when Obama followed Emanuel’s strategy and got 11 substantive bills on his desk before the August recess.

Instead, Congress has ground to a halt, on climate legislation, Wall Street reforms and virtually everything else. Emanuel, schooled by Bill Clinton, knew what the true believers didn’t: that bite-sized proposals add up to big things.

Contrast Emanuel’s wisdom with that of Jarrett, in charge of “intergovernmental affairs and public engagement” — two areas of conspicuous failure. Jarrett also brought in Desiree Rogers as White House social secretary; the Salahi embarrassment ensued. Then there’s Gibbs. It’s hard to make the case that you’re a post-partisan president when your on-camera spokesman is a hyper-partisan former campaign flack.

No wonder Emanuel has set up his own small press operation and outreach function to circumvent the dysfunctional ones that Jarrett and Gibbs run. Obama needs an old Washington hand to replace Jarrett and somebody with gravitas on the podium to step in for Gibbs.

The failure of the president’s message also reflects on his message maven, Axelrod, who is an adept strategist but blinded by Obama love. A good example was Obama’s unproductive China trip in November. Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod went along as courtiers; Emanuel remained at his desk in Washington, struggling to keep alive the big health-care bill that he didn’t want in the first place.

In hiring Emanuel, Obama avoided the mistakes of his Democratic predecessors, who first gave the chief of staff job to besotted loyalists. Now in trouble, Obama needs fewer acolytes and more action. Rahm should stay.

If Rahm Emanuel doesn’t have a giant man-crush on Barack Obama, maybe he should stay.  Certainly, if the Milbrank article has any truth to it, Rahm Emanuel would be the only one at the White House who has either common sense or a freaking clue.

It’s actually quite funny.  Democrats are increasingly at each others’ throats while all the while telling everyone (and I’m sure trying to reassure themselves) that everything is right as rain.

Whether Rahm Emanuel stays, or whether someone else goes, Barry Hussein is an utter failure, and a future utter disgrace.  You can change the whole rest of the team and it won’t matter, because their franchise player is an incompetent loser.

What’s Happened To Obama’s Chicago-Way Thug-Style ‘Hope And Change’?

February 11, 2010

One of the things that was truly amazing during the 2008 campaign is that the mainstream media were hyper-eager to gather in droves over Sarah Palin’s and then Joe the Plumber’s trash cans for any dirt they could find, but utterly refused to examine Barack Obama’s record in the most politically corrupt city in America.

This is why Obama was able to say, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  He could be whatever he wanted to depict himself, because the mainstream media wasn’t going to challenge anything he said.

Americans are finally beginning to understand who Mr. “blank screen” really is – and they are rejecting him in droves.  The pity is that they should have had an opportunity to learn who he was before they elected him.  But the dishonest ideologically-biased mainstream propagandists were not about to tell us anything they thought we might not want to hear.

The mainstream media have long held a “gatekeeper” mentality to the news, which is to say that they only told you what they wanted you to know, while holding back what they didn’t want you to know.

And they didn’t want you to know how Obama’s Chicago past would influence or even dictate his presidency: what happens in Chicago stays in Chicago.

But, inevitably, the American people were going to see the “Chicago side” of Barry Hussein.

From the Los Angeles Times blog:

President Obama Day 386: What’s happened to him?
February 9, 2010A favorite story about Chicago politics involves Roman Pucinski, who served six long terms of political apprenticeship in the Washington minor leagues of the U.S. House of Representatives before the Windy City’s vaunted Democratic political machine allowed him to step up and serve on the City Council.

The late Pucinski then served for 18 years as a loyal operative assigned to the 41st Ward (of 50).

It’s always useful for Chicago pols to have White House connections if, say, they’d like to dispatch someone famous to fly off to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee for their city’s 2016 summer games bid.

But the Chicago Daley machine, which is actually a ruthless coalition of urban Democratic factions united by the steel reinforcing rods of self-interest, didn’t much care about this Barack Obama fellow before, as long as he was quiet, obedient and headed on a track out of town. How he acquired a reform label coming out of that one-party place is anyone’s guess.

But now that the sun has risen on the 386th day of the Obama White House, many political observers are coming to see that the ex-state senator from the South Side is running his federal administration in Washington much the way they run things back home: with a small….

…claque of clout-laden people from the same school who learned their political trade back in the nation’s No. 3 city, named for an Indian word for a smelly wild onion.

That style is tough, focused, immune to any distractions but cosmetic niceties. And did we mention tough. A portly, veteran Chicago alderman once confided only about 40% jokingly, that he had taken up jogging to lose weight but quickly gave it up as boring because “you can’t knock anyone down.” That’s politics the Chicago way.

For instance, remember how much we heard all last year about the need for healthcare legislation before early August, before October, before Thanksgiving, before Christmas, before the State of the Union? And how spanked the White House was by the Massachusetts Senate upset that Obama said his laser-vision for 2010 was on jobs and the economy?

So, what did he announce during a Super Bowl interview? More healthcare meetings, designed to politically box Republicans into the No-Nothing corner.

In the last few days at least three major outlets have published well-informed evaluations of Obama’s first year in office.  All are well worth reading.  The dominant themes: disappointment and disillusionment with the Chicago way.

In one respect it’s not surprising that a capitol city with its own style of take-no-prisoners politics should find a professed outsider’s style of smoother-spoken take-no-prisoners discomforting.

But now, no less than the Huffington Post headlined its Obama evaluation by Steve Clemons: “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama presidency.”

The devastating Financial Times report by Edward Luce: “A fearsome foursome.”

And the Washington Post story by Ann Gerhart: “A year later, where did the hopes for Obama go?

The Post story focuses on a handful of Obama supporters, so fiercely motivated and hopeful in 2008 and through the inauguration, now largely drifting back to normal lives lacking fulfillment of so many promises.

The other two fascinating accounts examine Obama’s close-knit team of Chicagoans: confidante Valerie Jarrett, who’s so intelligent she once hired Michelle Obama; Rahm Emanuel, the diminutive, acid-tongued chief of staff with overwhelmAxelrod and Obamaing energy and ambition; David Axelrod, the ex-Chicago Tribune politics reporter-turned-consultant who’s been coaching Obama forever; and Robert Gibbs, who isn’t from Chicago but that’s OK because he’s only the mouthpiece and the others keep a close eye on him.

Clemons focuses on how dead-on the Luce piece is and how the FT Washington bureau chief had to assiduously hide his sources as everyone was properly so fearful of retribution from the quartet around the mayor, er, president.

And Clemons attributes the lack of online link love to the Luce item Monday to the same fears among D.C. journalists dodging disfavor from the same four.

Quoting “administration insiders,” Luce says “the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. ‘I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,’ says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently.”

And both articles note, accurately, how savvy cabinet secretaries like Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services and Ken Salazar at Interior have been marginalized because putting a media face on the Obama Oval Office can only be entrusted to the likes of Gibbs and Axelrod.

Another Luce source talks about the difference between campaigning, which is easier, and governing, which is the ultimate goal but takes a more refined skill-set:

‘There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,’ says one. ‘Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.’

Also noted, how most everything coming out of the executive office is filtered through a political prism above all. i.e. the Afghanistan troop surge speech that touched all the political bases in 4,582 words without once saying “victory.”

Warning that Obama needs to take action quickly, Clemons adds that needed advice from a broader range of advisers “is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.”

David Gergen, who helped guide Bill Clinton out of not dissimilar troubled waters, tells Luce: “There is an old joke. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

— Andrew Malcolm

Mark Steyn reminded viewers of Obama’s horribly botched pronunciation of the Navy Corpsmen who save the lives of wounded Marines, and then referred to “the four corpse men of the Obamaclypse.”  That’s quite accurate, as it turns out.  and these four corpse men are riding America into apocalypse right along with Barack Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s political future.

It’s scary to think that we have a preening peacock campaigning and campaigning with absolutely no idea how to actually govern.

Since the FT article is hard to obtain, and since I am all about preserving a record of the facts, here is the Luce article:

A Fearsome Foursome
By Edward Luce

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama’s brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans – like the president. And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

“It is a very tightly knit group,” says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. “This is a kind of ‘we few’ group … that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep.”

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

“Clearly this kind of core management approach worked for the election campaign and President Obama has extended it to the White House,” says Mr Podesta, who managed Mr Obama’s widely praised post-election transition. “It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.”

This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill. But for the setback in Massachusetts, which deprived the Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, Mr Obama would by now almost certainly have signed healthcare into law – and with it would have become a historic president.

But the normally liberal voters of Massachusetts wished otherwise. The Democrats lost the seat to a candidate, Scott Brown, who promised voters he would be the “41st [Republican] vote” in the Senate – the one that would tip the balance against healthcare. Subsequent polling bears out the view that a decisive number of Democrats switched their votes with precisely that motivation in mind.

“Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn’t want,” says Jim Morone, America’s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. “Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.”

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama’s health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

“We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ‘This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

The same applies to reforming the legal apparatus in the “war on terror” – not least his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year of taking office. That promise has been abandoned.

“Rahm said: ‘We’ve got these two Boeing 747s circling that we are trying to bring down to the tarmac [healthcare and the decision on the Afghanistan troop surge] and we can’t risk a flock of f***ing Canadian geese causing them to crash,’ ” says an official who attended an Oval Office strategy meeting. The geese stood for the closure of Guantánamo.

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

So you learn that Obama is all fluff and no substance (i.e., all campaign mode and no actual governing mode), and that Obama has to rely on his “Chicago fearsome foursome” the way he relies on his teleprompter: ubiquitously (as in even in sixth grade classrooms!!!).

And you should think long and hard about the profound comparison of Nixon’s tight (and tightly wound) inner circle and Obama’s same same.  A tight, insular circle that answers to no one and keeps its counsel secret is a frightening thing in any republic.

Here’s another comparison between Obama and his alter ego.  And realize that for a CHICAGO POLITICIAN to say, “I am not a crook,” is pretty much like a Chicago politician saying, “I am not a Chicago politician.”

Everything is politics for Obama.  Political posturing, political preening, political hatchet jobs.  Nothing else matters.

It is frankly amazing to me that such a hypocritical and cynical man as Barack Obama was ever elected president.  He constantly lectures Republicans (and even Democrats when it suits him) to “rise above petty politics” when the very construction of his administration is completely about politics.

I have on several occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Both men were utterly ruthless (there’s your ‘Chicago Way’) in pounding head after head to achieve their signature domestic issues, and both men became utter failures as they attempted to have their personal domestic agenda at the expense of everything else.

People are starting to learn that the “blank slate” may well be blank because the man behind the grand facade has no soul.

Alveda King Blows Up Another Liberal Lie From Planned Parenthood

January 24, 2010

There are way too many liberal lies out there.  As one example, liberals have owned many large cities for a hundred years — and what has that dominion brought the residents of those cities who struggle with high poverty, crime, drugs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and despair?  The cities with the highest rates of all of these things can’t blame Republicans – because the voters never gave Republicans any chance to solve these problems.  Who knows, if voters of cities such as Detroit or Chicago were to give Republicans a shot, maybe they’d get another Giuliani?

But they’ll likely never find out, because they have bought in to so many liberal lies that the Democrats own them.  And take them for granted.

Here’s another lie that liberals want you to believe: that Martin Luther King is smiling down from heaven as nearly half of all black babies are ripped apart in abortion mills.

DR. KING TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD: YOUR LIES ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING ARE HURTING AMERICA!
Published 01/22/2010 – 5:57 a.m. CST
Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

From Dr. Alveda King

Washington, DC – Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., responded to Planned Parenthood’s King Day press release linking the work of the abortion business to the civil rights leader.

“Every year Planned Parenthood tries to imply that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would approve of what it does today because he received an award from the organization 44 years ago,” said Dr. King. “Every year they lie. My Uncle stood for equal protection and non-violence – two concepts that Planned Parenthood violates every day by being the nation’s largest abortion business.”

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, stated that Planned Parenthood is no stranger to falsehoods. “Videotape reveals that Planned Parenthood doesn’t tell the truth to women and doesn’t tell legal authorities about possible criminal activity,” said Fr. Pavone. “Its implied claims about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are just more of Planned Parenthood’s stock in trade — deceit.”

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not attend the event where his award was presented. We don’t even know if he wrote the words of the acceptance speech that was read at the banquet,” added Dr. King. “In 1966, abortion on demand was unthinkable. To imply that Uncle Martin’s receipt of that award constitutes his endorsement of what Planned Parenthood engages in today – the destruction of human lives – is an outrage.”

Dr. King is attending the events surrounding the 2010 Annual March for Life in Washington, DC, where she will give her post abortion testimony at a Silent No More Awareness Campaign rally, along with actress Jennifer O’Neil and many other post abortive women and men who regret lost fatherhood.

King also said that “Planned Parenthood’s attack on pregnancy care centers is deceitful and outrageous. Their claims that abortion is safe are so false. Abortion is linked to breast and cervical cancer and so many other health problems. Abortion isn’t health care. Of course a woman experiencing an unexpected pregnancy is distressed. That’s why they need love and not abortion, which is really a health threat to the women and a death warrant for their children.”

DR. ALVEDA C. KING: Daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Founder of King for America, Inc. Mother of six and doting grandmother. Consultant to the Africa Humanitarian Christian Fellowship. Former college professor. MA degree in Business Management. Published author of Sons of Thunder, The King Family Legacy and I Don’t Want Your Man, I Want My Own. Doctorate of Laws conferred by Saint Anslem College. Served on the boards and committees of Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Judeo-Christian Coalition for Constitutional Restoration. Served in the Georgia State House of Representatives. Accomplished actress and songwriter. She is a voice for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, speaking about her regret for her abortion. During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, led by her Uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Alveda’s family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. “Daddy’s house was bombed, then in Louisville, Kentucky his church office was bombed. I was also jailed during the open housing movement,” she recalls. Alveda has continued her long-term work as a civil rights activist. Advocate for School Choice as a civil rights issue. Strong advocate for life of the unborn, faith in God not faith in government bureaucracy.

If there were a line to stand in to thank you for your stand for life, I would be in it.  Thank you for your love to both mothers and children, and thank you for your love for the truth, Alveda.

Some salient facts should demonstrate why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (a Republican, by the way), would never have championed abortion:

But, abortion is a big business as well. Planned Parenthood performs around 300,000 abortions annually. It received more than 350 million dollars last year toward a total income of over 900 million dollars. To that end, it covers up the physical and sexual abuse of underage females, increased breast cancer rates, and severe emotional trauma resulting in increased suicide rates. How can any organization that protects the perpetrators of sexual abuse of young girls and is unconcerned that post abortive women commit suicide at twice the rate of their peers claim to be pro-woman? Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a self professed Nazi sympathizer, said this when referring to prevention of births of Blacks and Jews:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

And, referring to blacks, she said:

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Just as Margaret Sanger envisioned, Planned Parenthood operates 80 percent of its clinics in minority neighborhoods. Almost as many African American children are aborted as are born. A black baby is three times more likely to be killed in the womb as a white baby. Since Roe vs Wade, abortion has reduced the black population by 25 percent of what it would have been. Twice as many African Americans have died from abortion as have died from violent crimes, heart disease, accidents and AIDS combined. Every three days more African Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in all its history.

Yet, Planned Parenthood holds a Margaret Sanger day each year, nearly elevating her to a sainthood of sorts. They present the “Maggie” (Margaret Sanger) award for promotion of their agenda by the media. Is there any other organization in America that could have so strong a following, command hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax money and be promoted in our schools, yet be as openly and vehemently racist as this? Truth is the greatest enemy of Planned Parenthood and organizations like them and truth is our greatest ally.

Are we better off? Are families stronger? Are children emotionally healthier and happier? The answer is no.

The warning from God to those who are determined in their pride to reject His ways in Proverbs 8:36 comes immediately to mind:

“But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.”

And abortion is nothing if it is not the love of death.  Death as the solution for godless life.

I stand with Dr. Alveda King with the proclamation that anyone who has read and loved Martin Luther King’s great speeches should be offended that he would have championed the killing field of almost half of all black Americans by abortion.

Obama’s Demonic Czars: Obama ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Supported Pedophile Molestation Of Student

October 7, 2009

No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” – Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

And he has surrounded himself with demons.

He surrounded himself with Van Jones – a communist; a supporter of cop murderers; a man who took the terrorists’ side on 9/11; a man who signed a “truther” statement demonizing President Bush for secretly attacking the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11; a racist who accused even white liberals of being murderers who deliberately poisoned people of color; etc. etc. etc.

He surrounded himself with men like Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel, who have said things like:

– “When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” – Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Resarch

– “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.

And Dr. Mengele couldn’t have put it much better.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with men like his science czar, John Holdren, who has stated:

– Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

– It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

And now we are learning that he has surrounded himself with a teacher who refused to protect a child under his counseling from being sodomized by a pedophile.

Kevin Jennings, appointed as the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is another Obama buddy out of ultra-corrupt Chicago.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

You see, I think most parents would rather teachers and public schools teach their kids to be in “exploratory mode” of damn near anything else than their children’s rectums.  Am I wrong?

And then we have Kevin Jennings sharing how he provided advice to a fifteen year-old sophomore:

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster].

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Kevin Jennings is an advocate for homosexual pedophilia.  He has in his past openly supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) by way of praising Harry Hay.  Jennings wrote the forward to a book entitled, The Queering of American Education.  For what it’s worth, fellow Chicago Obama buddy and terrorist Bill Ayers wrote a note endorsing the book on its cover jacket.

This is the man that Obama “entrusted” with ultimate care over your children.  But he is a demon in masquerade.

The despicable personal conduct, followed by the threat of a lawsuit when it was revealed, reminds me of another organization that Obama chose to surround himself with — ACORN.

Contrary to the left’s dismissal, Obama’s ties with ACORN are deep, and go back more than 20 years.

Two kids who were sick of the lefts’ corruption, hypocrisy, and vileness decided to see if ACORN would fall for the most horrendous scenario they could imagine: a prostitute and her pimp seeking to commit federal income tax fraud so they could purchase a house with the intent of importing child sex slaves from El Salvador so they could start a brothel.

And Obama’s ACORN fell for it – on film – on at least five separate occasions in five separate ACORN offices.

Let us judge Obama by the people with whom he has surrounded himself.  Because he has surrounded himself with the devil – and demons are doing his bidding.

And let us finally begin to think about how God will judge these demons – and the president who surrounded himself with them.  And, yes, the nation that elected that president.

Galatians 6:7 makes it clear, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”  And it is not just individuals who fall under God’s judgment, but nations.  As Psalm 110:6 says, “He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.”

“No, no, no! Not God bless America!  God damn America!”