Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category


Who Is Barack Obama Raping Today, Charles Krauthammer?

by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Charles Krauthammer, in his Edgar Suit

Charles Krauthammer, who is Barack Obama raping today? HA TRICK QUESTION!

Barack Obama is raping everybody today, because he is raping our treasury, because Hurricane Sandy. (Also, while we are aware it should be “whom is Obama raping,” because the rapee is the object of Barack Obama’s raping, well, in this one instance we just kind of don’t care. GRAMMAR BLOGGING!) Here is the first part, where Chuckles weeps salty tears for the unfairness we did to George W. Bush, before explaining how Barape Oraper raped us all, with his mighty black cock of fiscal irresponsibility.

“Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Democrats would leave Diogenes stunned,” Krauthammer said. “The Democrats spent two years savaging President [George W.] Bush over his treatment of Katrina. All of a sudden it’s a paragon of how to deal with disasters.”

LET’S UNPACK THIS A BIT RIGHT?

We — meaning “the entirety of the human race except for the illustrious personages of Fox News” — did not rag on George W. Bush because Congress was taking too long to fund assistance. We LOST OUR FUCKING MINDS because he LOST AN AMERICAN CITY. And four days after the levees broke, he had no idea PEOPLE WERE LIVING AND DYING LIKE ANIMALS WITHOUT A RESCUE IN SIGHT.

Of course, his priorities were in order. It only took him an additional six days to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act, which ensures that workers on federal contracts receive a minimum wage.

All right, Kraut. What’s next?

“And this idea that somehow the person to blame for suffering of the people today, months after Sandy, who aren’t getting help … is John Boehner, because of a bill he didn’t pass on January 1 — it’s preposterous, and the press is playing along that line,” he added.

Krauthammer said Boehner’s postponement of the pork-laden legislation was the right call, given that Congress was able to pass legislation raising the debt ceiling of the National Flood Insurance Program.

What is this pork we keep hearing about, anyway? Take it away, Weekly Standard!

But one of the big objections to the bill was that Senate Democrats had filled it with pork.

In fact, “Democrats expanded the legislation during a mark-up to include not just areas affected by Sandy, but also to provide money for ‘storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac,’” we reported previously.

Oh, so it is money for other people affected by the same hurricane, plus another hurricane? You are right, that sounds TERRIBLE.

The expansion of the bill was a way to provide a financial incentive for senators from red states–”two Republicans senators from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, and the one Republican senator from Louisiana”–to vote for the bill. “The Sandy kickbacks provide an incentive for those Republicans to vote on the bill,” we wrote.

Oh, so helping people from red states was a bribe for senators from red states — which they demanded and then complained about? I believe former president/future first lady Bill Clinton has a term for that, and that is “brass.” What is it we call it again? We can’t remember, but it is stronger even than “chootzpah.”

OK, thank you for the backstory, Weekly Standard, now let us get back to Charles Krauthammer, please.

“I think what Boehner did in postponing the vote until today was absolutely right,” Krauthammer declared. “That was a rape of the Treasury — $60 billion, including a ton of pork. The part that was essentially passed today to replenish the flood insurance. That is right, and the rest ought to be debated in regular order.”

Isn’t it funny how Republicans love to call everything rape except actual rape, which does not actually exist except in the fever dreams of feminists (who are all Andrea Dworkin) or anytime a black man looks at a white woman or wants hurricane funding. (Same thing.)

[DailyCaller]

Read more at http://wonkette.com/495885/who-is-barack-obama-raping-today-charles-krauthammer#37VQj4VdebEXPp7o.99


Why I’m Voting for President Obama
Five years later, much has changed
Via:- Randall Gross

I’m voting for President Obama because I trust him to do the right thing, and even on the issues where we don’t agree I know that he will make his choices based on principles and what he sees as best for our country as a whole rather than based on political expediency or the dictates of narrow interests. I have confidence in him as President and I know that he’s principled because I’ve watched him in action first as a candidate and then as our president for five years now.

When this started out I was not a Barack Obama fan – instead I was one of the many here at this site writing posts against him and campaigning for his opponents (that included Clinton, Guiliani, Romney, and McCain at various points as the long primary season wound into the national election). I was against him as president and was pretty firmly seated in the “anyone but Obama” camp because I still believed all the far right bumper stickers about him, and even took part in some of the attempts to slime him with Reverend Wright and other things.

Even after he was elected I was still heavily criticizing him regarding jobs and the economy all the way into 2010, but over time he slowly turned all of those negatives around. He demonstrated his leadership time and again, and took a lot of heat not only from the right, but also from many of the progressives in his own party to work through issues with a highly recalcitrant Congress. Under his guidance I watched as multiple branches of our Federal Government became more open, more effective, and more efficient.

At the same time I watched the right become bitter and hardened, witch hunting not only our new president but also anyone in their own party who didn’t kow-tow to their hard right litany at every other step. The cracked pots were let in the back door, and I ran out the front, at first to become an independent, and then a year later a registered Democrat.

Meanwhile, President Obama took the fight directly to the specific terrorist organizations who were attacking us and destabilizing the subcontinent of Asia and the Middle East. He quickly got results, using a combination of drone warfare, sanctions, agreements and diplomacy to further US interests and missions.

He didn’t care if the terrorists were hiding in Yemen and Pakistan and being sheltered by factions of those country’s military. He went after them anyway, just as he had promised in his campaign; he took out leader after leader until we got Osama Bin Laden hiding in Abottobad, Pakistan. Both Romney and McCain had roundly criticized him for saying he would go into Pakistan during the campaign, but he persisted until justice was done.

I’ve watched our President in action, turning the country around, doing what was required to save the auto industry, putting the country back to work with construction projects across the nation when we needed it most, and I’ve seen him persevere while the rabid right did everything in their power to cause him and our country to fail. I’ve seen him smile and still try to deal with Republican congressmen even as one of them called him a liar during an address to a joint session of Congress.

That joint session was for his landmark health care initiative, and I’m glad it passed. Now all of my nieces and nephews have a chance to stay on their parents health insurance as they go into those starter jobs. Now my pacemaker isn’t a pre-existing condition hurdle to changing insurance if I want to.

It’s now five years later, and I’m a big supporterIt was that kind of bile and the over the top charges like “Death panels” at that joint session and Barack’s persistent work against our real foes overseas that made me reconsider the propaganda I’d been fed, and made me dig deeper into the issues. At most junctures I found myself deciding that our president was right, and his opponents were absolutely crazed, as I dug into the facts of each issue.

I found that we agree on most issues regarding climate, social issues like gay marriage, and women’s rights. I fully support the regulations on Wall Street — we can’t afford vulture and wild West capitalism of the sort his opponent wants.

It’s now five years later, and I’m a big supporter. I honestly don’t think there is anyone out there who can do a better job as President for the next four years. Instead, I firmly believe that putting anyone else into office would seriously jeopardize the slow but steady recovery that we are in.

That’s why our President, Barack Obama, not only has my complete confidence and trust as president, but also my vote for the next four years.

Obama: “You Know I Tell the Truth”


Barack Obama Labels Mitt Romney a “Bullsh-tter” in Rolling Stone

by Hilton Haterat

Barack Obama is featured in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, and less than two weeks before the November 6 election, the President opens up to the publication with some choice words for Mitt Romney.

Foremost among them?

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama says about the young vote. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullsh***er, I can tell.’”

Barack Obama Rolling Stone Cover

Oh, it’s on! Okay, it’s been on for months now. But still. Strong words.

Among other topics Obama touches on in his interview:

Problems with the rich and poor: There are a whole bunch of millionaires who aren’t paying any income tax, as well as people at the lower end of the income spectrum who may be taking advantage of the safety net we’ve put in place. We should hold everybody accountable who’s not doing their fair share.

Standing up against your own party: If you can’t say no to certain elements of your party, if you don’t have sets of principles that you’re willing to fight for, even if they’re not politically convenient, then you’re gonna have a tough time in this office.

Roe vs. Wade in peril: I don’t think there’s any doubt. Governor Romney has made clear that’s his position. His running mate has made this one of the central principles of his public life.

The future of his health care plan: Just like Medicare and Social Security, as time goes on, as people see what it does, as it gets refined and improved, people will say, ‘This was the last piece to our basic social compact’ – providing people with some core security from the financial burdens of an illness or bad luck.

His first-term achievements: Sometimes folks obsess with gridlock and the ugliness of the process down here in Washington. We passed health care – something that presidents have tried to do for 100 years…We passed the toughest Wall Street reform since the 1930s… We have expanded access to college through the Pell Grant program and by keeping student loans low. The list of things that we’ve accomplished, even once the Republicans took over, is significant.

What Romney should dress as for Halloween: I don’t know about this Halloween. Next Halloween I hope he’ll be an ex-presidential candidate.


Obama, Assassination, and the Antichrist Conspiracy
Chip Berlet on the connections
Randall Gross Nov 19, 2011

[Link: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/19/153758/35/Front_Page/Obama_Assassination_and_the_Antichrist_Conspiracy]

Even if the shooter is a thorough crackpot his delusions did not form in a vacuum. Hate sites like Prison Planet, Atlas Shrugs, and Farrah’s World Net Daily all do most of the heavy lifting for these conspiracy theories and delusions. Oprah is not a hate site, but she does her share of aiding and abetting delusion with promotion of pseudoscience and magical thinking disguised as pop pscyh self help, so it’s really not a contradiction that he addressed a video to her, even though many on the right will grasp at that and say aha!

The alleged shooter charged with attempting to assassinate President Obama, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, apparently thinks our Commander in Chief is an agent of Satan in an End Times war. Sarah Posner has explained the basics in an article “‘Obama the Antichrist’ and end-times doctrine.” I warned about the possibility of the demonization of Obama leading to more violence in a book chapter published in 2010 “The Roots of Anti-Obama Rhetoric.” Here is a slightly revised version of what I wrote:

Many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Others are convinced he was not born in Hawaii and is thus not eligible to be President. Some say Obama is the Antichrist of Biblical prophecy.

A September 2009 poll in New Jersey found that 14% of Republicans believed that President Obama was the Antichrist—Satan’s agent in the End Times according to one reading of the Bible’s Book of Revelation. Another 15% thought it might be possible.

The results across political allegiances, however, were also troubling; with 8% of respondents statewide saying they thought Obama was the Antichrist and 13% stating they “aren’t sure”. The poll also found that “21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States”.

According to the pollster, these are “eye popping numbers” (“Extremism in New Jersey”, 2009). The mobilization of apocalyptic expectation among Christian Evangelicals in the United States has been shown to be an effective mobilization strategy by the Christian Right and allies in the Republican Party (Boyer, 1992; Fuller 1995). This is especially true among fundamentalists (Barron, 1992; Mason, 2002; Berlet, 2008). This millenarian mood is spread from religious into secular communities, often through conspiracy theories (Brasher, 2000).


The Suspected White House Shooter’s Right Wing Ideas
An anti-government religious fanatic who thinks Obama is the anti-Christ
Charles Johnson

Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez has been charged with attempting to assassinate President Obama, and in light of the right wing blogosphere’s ongoing attempts to link Ortega to the Occupy Wall Street protests, it should be pointed out that what we know so far about his delusional ideas falls much more in line with right wing religious ideology: Idaho Man Threatened Obama, Officials Say.

Mr. Ortega-Hernandez’s family had reported him missing in Idaho Falls last month, after he drove away in the Honda Accord, the complaint said. The Secret Service has said it did not have Mr. Ortega-Hernandez on record as having made any threats against the president. But after the shooting, several acquaintances said he had been fixated on Mr. Obama.

Besides the one friend who told investigators that Mr. Ortega-Hernandez had said he believed the president was the “Antichrist” and that he needed to kill him, another friend said he stated “President Obama was the problem with the government,” was “the devil,” and that he “needed to be taken care of.” The second friend also said he appeared to be “preparing for something.”

Mr. Ortega-Hernandez has had legal problems in Idaho, Texas, and Utah, including charges related to drug offenses, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, officials have said. He is said to be heavily tattooed, with the word “Israel” on his neck and pictures of rosary beads and hands clasped in prayer on his chest.

The crazy idea that President Obama is the anti-Christ is a very common meme on the religious right; here’s one of many articles at World Net Daily promoting this idiocy: Did Jesus actually reveal name of the ‘antichrist’?

The name that “Jesus revealed,” according to this article, is Barack Obama.


Barack Obama

Barack Obama

Support him, loathe him or feel wildly ambivalent — whatever you think of Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States has done more than any other non-Jew we can think of to shape the American Jewish story in 2011. Obama, 50, rode a near-tidal wave of Jewish support toward his historic win in 2008, and quickly appointed two Jews to sit in the offices closest to his in the White House.

But his frosty relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu soured some in the Jewish establishment and emboldened Republicans eager to chip away at Jewish voters’ stubborn loyalty to liberal politics. Sensing an opening, most of the other GOP candidates for president seem to share Mitt Romney’s assessment that Obama has thrown Israel “under the bus.” But while such sentiment was making inroads among some American Jews, the president’s vocal opposition to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood and his administration’s unprecedented military support for Israel prompted New York Magazine to call him “the best friend Israel has right now.”

In countless Jewish social settings, the mere mention of Obama’s name elicits passionate and conflicting responses — so much so that the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress recently called for an end to the use of Israel as a political wedge issue. Believing that such a move would censor criticism of the president, Republican groups angrily refused. Meanwhile, after Obama’s defense of Israel at the United Nations in September, his approval rating in Israel soared. It’s been that sort of year.

via Barack Obama – Forward 50 – Forward.com.


Former Mideast Envoy George Mitchell: Obama’s Israel Statements Not New

The media’s meme is false

George Mitchell, who recently resigned as President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, said today that Obama’s statements on the “1967 lines” were not a major shift in policy.

The question is, why have the mainstream media been working so hard to hype this as a huge departure from previous policies, when it’s very clearly nothing of the sort?

Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who resigned this month as President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East after serving two years, said that while President Obama’s comments on the 1967 borders were “a significant statement,” they do not signal a major shift in policy, especially when land swaps are taken into consideration.

“The president didn’t say that Israel has to go back to the ‘67 lines. He said with agreed swaps,” Mitchell told Amanpour. “Swaps means an exchange of land intended to accommodate major Israeli population centers to be incorporated into Israel and Israel’s security needs. Agreed means through negotiations. Both parties must agree.”

“That’s not going to be a border unless Israel agrees to it and we know they won’t agree unless their security needs are satisfied, as it should be,” Mitchell added of the 1967 borders.

Mitchell noted that Obama’s Thursday statement on borders were identical to a proposal made by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who served until 2009.

“In a later interview, let me read to you what he said: ‘I presented Abbas with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles. One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders, with minor modifications on both sides,’” Mitchell said of Olmert’s previous comments.

Netanyahu, who will address the pro-Israel lobby Monday and Congress on Tuesday, played down the rift.

“The disagreements have been blown way out of proportion,” he told The Associated Press on Saturday. “It’s true we have some differences of opinion, but these are among friends.”


Instantaneous Outrageous Outrage: ‘Obama Sides with Palestinians!’

Distorted AP article triggers yet another fake outrage

In three short paragraphs about President Obama’s speech this morning, the Associated Press warps the story beyond recognition: Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians’ opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel’s desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

Wow. Rarely have I seen such blatant distortion in a mainstream news release. Here’s the exact quote from Obama’s speech:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Note: he didn’t say “1967 borders,” he didn’t “side with the Palestinians,” and he absolutely did still insist on mutually agreed swaps and secure borders for both countries. It’s nothing but a re-wording of the same position the US has taken for many years.

Based on this distorted and very misleading AP article, Fox News instantly put together a screaming fake outrage headline, currently leading on their front page:

Drudge Report also jumped on it, running a huge headline: “OBAMA SIDES WITH PALESTINIANS!”

And of course, it’s already all over the right wing blogosphere that President Obama “told Israel to move back to the pre-1967 borders.”

No. He didn’t.

All this fake outrage spread throughout the Internet within minutes after the President’s speech, like a virtual wingnut flash mob.

I guess it’s too much to ask these people to report what the President actually said.

UPDATE at 5/19/11 4:50:18 pm

Ben Smith comments:

Count me among those who have covered spats between the U.S. and Israel in some detail, and are a bit perplexed why sources from the New York Times to Benjamin Netanyahu are acting as though a Rubicon has been crossed by Obama’s restating universal assumptions and U.S. policy, and meanwhile slapping down the key Palestinian diplomatic drive.

Jeffrey Goldberg comments:

I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

UPDATE at 5/19/11 5:00:44 pm

This section of Obama’s speech is certainly not “siding with the Palestinians” — in fact, he’s clearly saying that Palestinians will never have a state while they reject Israel’s right to exist:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.


When Religious Pandering Goes Too Far?

by Hemant Mehta

I’m used to politicians pandering to religious Americans.

There’s more of them, so there are more votes to be gained by speaking their “language.” That coupled with the fact that President Obama is a Christian just meant we could expect a lot of religious references in his speech in Tucson, Arizona yesterday.

I wasn’t disappointed:

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts. But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight. We mourn with you for the fallen. We join you in your grief. And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

As Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,

the holy place where the Most High dwells.

God is within her, she will not fall;

God will help her at break of day.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in restful and eternal peace. May He love and watch over the survivors. And may He bless the United States of America.

I’m sure a lot of you feel it’s too much. He shouldn’t have made any religious references at all and this was overkill.

But somehow, none of those passages fazed me. They went in one ear and out the other. I’m so used to hearing them by now, I feel almost immune to them.

Until I heard the President talk about Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl who died in the shooting. Obama spoke about her in some detail early in his speech, and then at the end of it, he said this:

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today.

Ugh…

No. There are no rain puddles in heaven. Christina is not jumping in them. Hell, there’s not even a heaven in the first place.

I hate this idea that we have to create imaginary memories for people who die young, as if we couldn’t find anything happier to remember them by during their lifetimes. For all the joy Christina surely provided her family with during her life, Obama chose instead to invoke this fake scenario that I feel cheapens her memory.

I realize I’m probably overreacting. This was one line in a very long (and honestly beautiful) speech.

It just rubbed me the wrong way. I don’t know if I’m alone in this.