Pres. Obama on border crisis: I’m “not interested in photo ops”

The joke is on you, Mr. President.

The joke is on you, Mr. President.

Once again, our celebrity President opens his mouth and inserts his foot. From the Washington Post:

DALLAS — President Obama on Wednesday forcefully defended his decision not to visit the Texas border with Mexico to view a burgeoning humanitarian crisis, saying he’s “not interested in photo ops” and challenging Congress to give him new authority to respond to the situation.

“Nothing has taken place down there that I’m not intimately aware of,” Obama said during a hastily arranged news conference here, where he began a two-day visit to the state for Democratic fundraising and an economic event. “This is not theater.”

His remarks came after a meeting with Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and local leaders to discuss his administration’s response to an influx of tens of thousands of foreign children, mostly from Central America, who have entered the state illegally.

Obama, under mounting pressure from members of both parties to view the border situation firsthand, said he has been well briefed by his Cabinet aides and called on Congress to quickly approve $3.7 billion in emergency funding to help manage the influx.

“This is not theater”? He’s “not interested in photo ops”? Hmm, that’s never stopped him before:


See more Obama photo op reminders via Twitchy Team.

What he darned well knows is that visiting the border wouldn’t be a “photo op” because photo ops are designed by nature to make politicians look good, and this would have exactly the opposite effect on his image by making him look exactly like what he is: weak and ineffective – especially considering the current crisis at the border has his name written all over it. Really unbelievable the stuff this guy tries pass off as ‘fact’! These days, though, there are many even in the reliably left wing media not willing to give him a free pass anymore. Thank goodness.

Tweet of the Week: On Obama, the border crisis, & his refusal to visit

Twitter

Never a dull moment in the Twittersphere …

From our very own Phineas:

Any questions?

CNN has more President’s visit to the Lone Star State:

(CNN) — President Barack Obama travels to Texas, the epicenter of the immigrant influx, on Wednesday.

But the trip has come under criticism from Republicans and some Democrats because, while it includes a Democratic Party fundraising event, it doesn’t stop at the border area where the flood of immigrants cross illegally into the United States.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a possible GOP presidential nominee in 2016, called the situation similar to the much-disparaged federal response to Hurricane Katrina by the Bush administration.

“For him to go to Texas and spend two days shaking down donors and never even getting near the border mess he helped create would be like flying into New Orleans in the highest waters of Katrina to eat Creole cooking, but never getting near the 9th Ward, the Superdome, or the Convention Center where thousands languished in squalor,” Huckabee said.

Ouch! Huckabee can be annoying sometimes, but when he’s right, he’s right.

In related news, after back and forth posturing over the specifics, the President and Texas Gov. Rick Perry plan to meet today to discuss the situation. Grab the popcorn … and the video recorders. ;)

Related (via):

Pres. Obama “quietly” backing Sen. Warren over Hillary for 2016?

Hillary and Obama

Has the backstabbing between the two already started?

An intriguing report from the NY Post’s Edward Klein (via):

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

Obama has authorized his chief political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring.

In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.

Back in April, Legal Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson wrote of his belief that Senator Warren would “crush” Clinton in the Democrat primaries because she’s even more left wing than Hillary:

Forget the current polling as between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. It pits Hillary against someone who “isn’t running.”

For all my criticisms of Warren, and they are extensive, I am convinced that if she ran, she would crush Hillary, just as Obama did.

Warren, as did Obama, has a unique ability to demagogue the core Democratic narrative of victimhood in ways that would make Hillary blush. She is more cunning than Hillary, more popular with the base, would bring an excitement the contrived Ready-for-Hillary movement could only dream of.   Democrats may be “ready” for Hillary, but they don’t really want her.

He referenced a Byron York piece written around the same time that listed several reasons why Warren should run whether or not La Clinton decides to do the same:

1. Life is unpredictable. Clinton will be 69 years old on inauguration day 2017, nearly the oldest president ever. She has had a few health scares. By all accounts, she left her previous four-year stint in government service exhausted. She might not run, and the Democrat in second place in the polls, Vice President Joe Biden — 74 on inauguration day — is too old to be president. Beyond them, Democrats have nobody — except Elizabeth Warren.

2. Parties need competition. The primary process isn’t just to allow voters to pick a nominee. It’s for the candidates to become better candidates. The rigors of campaigning, the day-to-day jostle with competitors and the stress of high-profile debates all make candidates better. Conversely, a cakewalk through the primaries could leave a nominee in poor fighting shape for a general election. Warren would make Clinton a better candidate, and vice-versa.

3. The Left wants a hero. Clinton has never really excited the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They see her as an overcautious centrist like her husband, and on top of that, many have never forgiven her for voting to authorize the war in Iraq. Warren, on the other hand, has thrilled the Left with her attacks on inequality, plutocrats and big financial institutions.

4. Hillary ran a dumb campaign in 2008 and might do so again. For a group of seasoned veterans, the 2008 Clinton campaign showed a stunning ignorance of how to win delegates in a Democratic contest. Rival Barack Obama exploited that weakness brilliantly. For example, Obama collected more net delegates by winning the Idaho caucuses, with 21,000 participants, than Clinton did by winning the New Jersey primary, with more than 1 million voters. Clinton just didn’t pay attention to the smaller stuff, particularly the caucuses, and her cluelessness helped Obama win. It might help another rival in 2016.

5. One more time: Life is unpredictable. This is Warren’s only chance to run. She will be 67 on Inauguration Day 2017. (Has any party ever fielded a group as old as Clinton, Biden and Warren?) A run in 2020 or later is out of the question. Hillary, now struggling to define her legacy as Secretary of State, is running on pure entitlement. The only thing about her candidacy that truly excites the Democratic base is that she would be the first woman president. Of course, that applies to Elizabeth Warren, too. And Warren would present a far fresher face to voters than Clinton, who has been in the national spotlight since 1992.

Heck, I dunno what the future holds for either of them – in spite of the fact that I’ve predicted outright that Hillary will make one last try of it in 2016.  As noted above, Senator Warren is an unashamed Massachusetts liberal while Hillary likes to pretend she’s a middle of the road type.  Not only that, there is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas – in spite of public appearances to the contrary – especially when it comes to Bill and the President, so it certainly wouldn’t be outside of the realm of possibility that Obama has already placed his legacy cards in Senator Warren’s basket, believing she would be a viable female contender for President against Hillary.  No matter what happens, though, one thing I’ll be doing over the next few months as decisions are made and announced is stocking up on the popcorn, because things are shaping up to be quite interesting in terms of potential 2016 contenders, at least on the Democrat side …. ;)

QOTD: WH @PressSec on the Obama admin’s “pay gap” hypocrisy

After a report from the Washington Post about how the White House was not practicing what it preaches on the issue of “equal pay”, new White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say when questioned at today’s press breifing:


The Hill provides a more detailed accounting of Earnest’s answer:

The White House still has “more work to do” on equal pay for women who work for the president, press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

Earnest was pressed by a Washington Post analysis of staff salaries that showed women at the White House make 88 cents for every dollar earned by men. While female West Wing staffers are paid the same salaries as men when they hold the same jobs, men are more likely to hold higher-level, better-paid staff positions.

“I think you could use that statistic to indicate that the White House has some improvement to make along that measure,” Earnest said.
But the White House spokesman argued that the White House outperformed the private sector, where women make just 77 cents to every dollar made by a man.

“The White House is doing appreciably better than the country is more broadly, but we still have more work to do at the White House,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t hold up the White House as the perfect example here, but we are an example of an organization that is making an effort and enjoying some success in making sure that there are women who get equal pay for equal work and women who have an opportunity to advance their careers here at the White House,” he continued. “And I think our record, when judged by that standard, holds up very, very well.”

LOL! As always, this is the “Say One Thing, Do Something Different” administration. Has there been any major issue they’ve brought before Congress and the American people since 2008 that they haven’t later found to be flaming hypocrites on? I can’t think of any …

The joke is on you, Mr. President.

The joke is on you, Mr. President.

White House #WarOnWomen continues as analysis shows “pay gap” persists

Obama teleprompter

What happens when your own rhetoric catches up with you.

Via The Washington Post:

The White House has not narrowed the gap between the average pay of male and female employees since President Obama’s first year in office, according to a Washington Post analysis of new salary data.

The average male White House employee currently earns about $88,600, while the average female White House employee earns about $78,400, according to White House data released Tuesday. That is a gap of 13 percent.

In 2009, male employees made an average of about $82,000, compared to an average of $72,700 earned by female employees — also a 13 percent wage gap.

One of the key reasons is that more men hold the higher-paying, senior jobs in the White House, and more women hold the lower-paying, junior jobs.

Today, there are 87 male White House officials who make more than $100,000, compared to 53 female White House officials. The gap narrows, but persists, at the highest echelons of the White House. Among the most senior officials, there are two more men than women.

I can’t tell you what a kick it gives me to see the Obama administration hoisted by their own petard on the issue of “equal pay.”  The rhetoric and “statistics” used by both the administration and “feminists” on the so-called “wage gap” (“women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes!”) going back years has proven time and time again to be outright false, yet they continue to play the “women card” because they know it’s an issue they can use to great effect to emotionally rally the masses to their cause – especially during an election year.  By any means necessary, and all that.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air breaks it all down:

And yet again, the White House wants to argue that its own practices should be held to a different standard than the White House applies to everyone else:

White House officials say that even if the aggregate statistics show a gap, men and women in the same roles at the White House are paid similar amounts. “At the White House, we have equal pay for equal work,” said White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo. “Men and women in equivalent roles earn equivalent salaries, and over half of our departments are run by women.”

That’s true. However, while pushing this issue as a crisis everywhere else outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Obama and his team use aggregate statistics to support the claim that a substantial pay gap exists for equal work and equal experience. Using the standard the White House wants to use for itself, that gap all but disappears — and the White House actually lags on that measure.

Obama says he needs Congress to act. Maybe Congress needs to act a lot less than Obama needs to take care of his own house, or admit that he’s demagoguing this issue as part of the larger “war on women” demagoguery.

‘Nuff said.

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)

Poll: Plurality believe Obama is the worst president since WWII

obama-mirror

The hits just keep coming for our celebrity President (hat tip):

A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, a new poll says.

According to a Quinnipiac Universitpoll released Wednesday, 33 percent of voters think the current president is the worst since 1945.

[…]

Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, came in at second-worst with 28 percent, and Richard Nixon was in third place with 13 percent of the vote. After Jimmy Carter, who 8 percent of voters said was the worst president in the time period, no other president received more than 3 percent.

And if you think that was the worst of the polling news the Obama administration woke up to this morning, wait til you read this:

Americans are also expressing some buyer’s remorse after the 2012 election, according to the poll: 45 percent believe the country would be better off under Republican candidate Mitt Romney, versus the 38 percent who think it would be worse.

Well, it’s bad enough to rank worse than the man your party has by and large proclaimed to be the “worst, most evil President EVAH!!!!!!!” but when you also find out on the same day that nearly 50% of the American people think the country would be more better off  than not under your last opponent  … well then it’s time to take a long hard look at the man in the mirror to try and determine where it all went wrong – and then contemplate how to try and “right” the course.  Not that that will happen, mind you, because Obama thinks he can do no wrong.  All the same,  just a little friendly advice from yours truly for our nation’s Chief Executive Officer …

The return of President Obama – the “Healer in Chief”?

Newsweek's Obama cover

‘Second Coming’? I don’t think so.

Not this garbage again:

Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has the power to “heal” undocumented immigrants.

“If [Republicans] want to come back and discuss [reform], fine,” the Illinois Democrat said on MSNBC. “But in the interim period, I believe the president of the United States has already in statute, in the law, the ability to heal and put in a safe harbor millions of undocumented immigrants while the Congress of the United States finally decides it’s going to take action.”

[…]

Gutierrez said he does not have much optimism when it comes to comprehensive reform coming out of Congress. Instead, he said that he hopes the steps from Obama will start to get the ball rolling on immigration policies.

“Just as Republicans have said, ‘No, no, no,’ I expect the president to be broad, expansive and generous in the use of his prosecutorial discretion,” Gutierrez said.

Let’s clear up the confusion on this – again. Politicians are not “healers”, they are not “saviors”, they are not “the next coming of Jesus Christ” – nothing even remotely close.   They don’t “heal” anyone – they legislate, they govern.  They are human beings who were elected to serve at various levels of government by a majority of the people in their counties, cities, districts, states, etc.  They are all fallible, with some sincerely entering into the political arena to make a difference, while others in the same field often partake in activities that most would consider corrupt.  These people should not be viewed any differently than you or I should be – that is, they shouldn’t be put on pedestals to idolize and worship.  That goes double for the President of the United States, no matter who he or she may be.

Any questions?

Pres. Obama vows to “fix” immigration problems “without Congress”

King Obama

Image via Salon.com

Wish I could say I was surprised by this:

President Obama vowed Monday to bypass Congress and pursue unilateral changes to the country’s immigration system, defying House Republicans who say his executive actions are part of the problem. 

The president, speaking in the Rose Garden, said he is forced to go it alone because the House has failed to act on a comprehensive overhaul. He said Speaker John Boehner informed him last week the House will not vote on an immigration bill this year. 

“America cannot wait forever for them to act,” Obama said. He said he’s launching a new effort to “fix as much of our immigration system as I can, on my own, without Congress.” 

The president’s announcement is sure to infuriate congressional Republicans. Obama is pushing for new executive actions in defiance of Boehner’s vow last week to pursue a lawsuit against the president over alleged executive overreach. Even before Monday’s announcement, Boehner and his colleagues alleged that the president has gone too far in making changes without Congress to immigration policy, the Affordable Care Act, environmental regulations and other issues. 

[…]

As for his conversation last week with the president, Boehner said he only told Obama what he’s been saying for months: that until the public and elected officials trust him to enforce the law, “it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue.” 

Obama, though, said he would still prefer to seek changes via Congress, and he’d continue to press the House to act. 

But for the time being, the president announced two steps. First, he’s directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to move “available resources” from the interior to the border to address security. Further, the president said he’s directed a team to “identify additional actions my administration can take on our own within my existing legal authorities to do what Congress refuses to do and fix as much of our immigration system as we can.” 

The usual arguments about the President’s routine and disturbing tendencies to act unilaterally without Congressional approval apply, but there’s something else at play here as well – which you won’t see any op/eds written about in the New York Times. And it’s not rocket science:  Obama and Congressional Republicans are at constant odds because of the President’s – and Senator Harry Reid’s – failure to demonstrate leadership in compromising with the opposition.   We have a divided government.   The US House is controlled by Republicans.  The US Senate is controlled by Democrats.  The President and Reid continually demand that the House make all the concessions when it comes to key and critical legislation they want to pass, and if they don’t slide far enough to the left, they’re “obstructionists.” Well, what about Reid and Senate Democrats who refuse to “meet in the middle”?

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both worked with Congresses that were largely hostile to their agendas but they still ultimately got things done, even if it wasn’t always (and it frequently wasn’t) exactly what they wanted.  Our current President can’t make that same claim – because he doesn’t know how to lead and never has.  For all that talk about “bridging the partisan divide” in 2008, he has little to show for it.  He can blame the House GOP all he wants to, but the truth of the matter is that Obama is not much for compromise nor disagreement, and he won’t let a little thing like Congress stand in his way.  What the President should really be doing when playing the “woe is me” blame game is looking straight into a mirror, because that’s where the lion’s share of the problem exists.

QOTD: On the many times #SCOTUS has ruled unanimously against the Obama admin

Obama arrogance

John Fund on the Obama administration’s bad track record with respect to the Supreme Court’s many unanimous rulings against them (via):

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).

The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.

So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”

Disturbing, but true. Make sure to read the whole thing.

#SCOTUS: Constitutional scholar President overstepped on recess appointments

King Obama

Image via Salon.com

A HUGE victory for limiting executive powers – via Fox News:

The Supreme Court delivered a blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president’s power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break.

In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats.

The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

“Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue,” Breyer wrote.

At the same time, the court upheld the general authority of the president to make recess appointments.

This one, like the Citizens United ruling, is gonna sting “the smartest administration evah!!” quite a bit. Good.

In other good news related to SCOTUS: Justices strike down protest buffer zones around Massachusetts abortion clinics.  Planned Parenthood, of course, is not pleased.  What a shame.