Obama and His Applauding Pigeons! Time Will tell!

Obama is clever. He accuses Romney of no plan and then proceeds with his own hyperbole but offers no plan of his own. Just more empty words. The pigeons applaud. He imputes a variety of lies to his opponent and then tells his audience he would never do any of those things. The pigeons applaud. He talks about protecting the middle class from the ravages of the rich and yet his policies have done more to bring despair to the middle class than any president in recent memory. The pigeons applaud. Obama tells us he supports a strong military, has ended wars, continues to kill terrorists and after four years is a whizz on foreign policy. The pigeons applaud. He believes education is the best hope of the middle class yet, supports unions who have brought our education standards and curriculum to its knees and who have resisted change and proven new methods that benefit students. The pigeons applaud. For well over 30 minutes Obama talked on and on about what he will do given another chance. No specifics of how, just words dropping like rain on the cold pavement. The pigeons still applaud. Yes, Obama is a master at propaganda, at the McCarthy type big lie created out of fluff like a cloud, impossible to grasp. Those who cannot see through his empty nonsense are just the kind of dumb pigeons he needs and is depending upon to get him re-elected and they are out there applauding. Go forth you dumb cluckers. Embrace Obama. He is your man! Let him continue to learn on the job at the expense and long term health of America - the land of 57 states. You have every right to go with the candidate of your choice - 'president platitudes.' I have chosen the path Obama has damned, has mocked, has lied about. Time will tell. It generally does. (See 1 below.)

 Woodward uncovers the real Obama but the pigeons still applaud. (See 1a below.) --- Executive order fetish! (See 2 below.)
---
Dick
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 "One Of The Emptiest Speeches I Have Ever Heard"
By  CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:

I was stunned. This is a man who gave one of the great speeches of our time in 2004, and he gave one of the emptiest speeches I have ever heard on a national stage. Yes, it had cadence, and yes, there were deceptions in it, but that is not what is so striking about it. There was nothing in it. This is a man who believes that government can and should do a lot. There is nothing in here that tells us how he's going to go from today to tomorrow. For any of the so called goals and what government is going to do, what is he going to enact? At least Romney had a five point plan. What we heard from Obama was a vision. And he pulls numbers out of a hat. 100,000 new math and science teachers. 600,000 more people working in natural gas. Two million more trainees, and he doesn't say how we get from A to B. It's a vision. I have a vision of an America where there is no disease and everybody has a private airplane, but unless I tell you how we get there, I’ve said nothing. And what is so surprising, is that - all he had left - he can't speak about his record on the economy, and it's not a good one. As we heard, he didn't speak about achievements, the one that's liberals like, ObamaCare, stimulus and etc… they're unpopular. So, at least he would talk about the future, what he's going to to. There was nothing there. I’m amazed that he was -- it was like this is a guy who is the A student in the class turning in a paper clearly a C, and the teacher says, “How could you do this? Why did you mail it in?” I felt the Biden speech was infinitely better, because it was empathic and carried a message, but the Obama speech, I thought was flat and had no content in it. Otherwise, I loved it, really…
 KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it is the heart of the debate with Republicans and Romney. The heart of the debate between left and right, since the French Revolution. The individual or community, and he stands for the community, which he translates as government. So with that abstract, a cleverly sealed argument. But, that is not what you're talking about in an acceptance speech, when you've been in power for four years. People expect you to say I’m going to do X, Y, and Z, and we didn't hear any of that. So, as a philosophical issue, yes, but without any of that meat on the bone, I think it rings quite hollow.
 KRAUTHAMMER: I think it does [affect Independents] and I think it's a negative. If you're an independent and aren't a committed person on the left or right. And you were sort of a pragmatist, and you’re listening and the President offers you numbers out of a hat, he wants a lot of this and that. He’s mentioning again and again with wind and solar and algae, but he didn't use a word, he used biofuel. And you say, I’ve heard this, this is nothing new. This, is what he tried, he talked about. Where is the meat to make me think that I should have hope and faith? That we will achieve anything? That is what I think he's lacking. I think for independents, it will send him somewhat backwards.

 1a)Woodward’s devastating account of Obama’s failed leadership
By Conn Carroll

 Arrogant, aloof, and unprepared is how Bob Woodward portrays President Obama in his new book The Price of Politics, set to be released next week. The book recounts Obama’s troubled relationship with Congress, from his inauguration through last summer’s failed debt-limit negotiations, with Woodward concluding, “It is a fact that President Obama was handed a miserable, faltering economy and faced a recalcitrant Republican opposition. But presidents work their will — or should work their will — on important matters of national business. . . . Obama has not.” Snippets of the book, as reported by The Washington Post, include: The book portrays Obama as a man of paradoxical impulses, able to charm an audience with his folksy manner but less adept and less interested in cultivating his relationships with Reid and Pelosi. While the president worries that he can’t rely on the two leaders, they are portrayed as impatient with him. As the final details of the 2009 stimulus package were being worked out on Capitol Hill, Obama phoned the speaker’s office to exhort the troops. Pelosi put the president on speakerphone so everyone could hear. “Warming to his subject, he continued with an uplifting speech,” Woodward writes. “Pelosi reached over and pressed the mute button. They could hear Obama, but now he couldn’t hear them. The president continued speaking, his disembodied voice filling the room, and the two leaders got back to the hard numbers.” … In the same vein, Woodward portrays Obama’s attempts to woo business leaders as ham-handed and governed by stereotype. At a White House dinner with a select group of business executives in early 2010, Obama gets off on the wrong foot by saying, “I know you guys are Republicans.” Ivan Seidenberg, the chief executive of Verizon, who “considers himself a progressive independent,” retorted, “How do you know that?” Nonetheless, Seidenberg was later pleased to receive an invitation to the president’s 2010 Super Bowl party. But he changed his mind after Obama did little more than say hello, spending about 15 seconds with him. “Seidenberg felt he had been used as window dressing,” Woodward writes. “He complained to Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama aide. . . . Her response: Hey, you’re in the room with him. You should be happy.” ABC News also reports: As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a “growing feeling of incredulity” as negotiations meandered. “The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles,” Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen’s thinking. … Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to Obama who also served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, identified a key distinction that he said impacted budget and spending talks. “Obama doesn’t really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything,” Summers said. “Whereas, Obama, he really didn’t like these guys.” … Woodward portrays a president who remained a supreme believer in his own powers of persuasion, even as he faltered in efforts to coax congressional leaders in both parties toward compromise. Boehner told Woodward that at one point, when Boehner voiced concern about passing the deal they were working out, the president reached out and touched his forearm. “John, I’ve got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people,” Boehner quotes the president as having told him. … With the nation facing the very real possibility of defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history, David Krone, the chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told the president directly that he couldn’t simply reject the only option left to Congress. “It is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B,” Krone said, according to Woodward.

 1b)The Party that Obama Un-Built Where is the next generation of Democrats?
By Kim Strassel

 Julian Castro is no Barack Obama. And for that, Democrats have themselves to blame. The focus of this week's Democratic convention was President Obama. Lost in the adulation was the diminished state to which he has brought his broader party. Today's Democrats are a shadow of 2008—struggling for re-election, isolated to a handful of states, lacking reform ideas, bereft of a future political bench. It has been a stunning slide. The speech by Mr. Castro, the young and charismatic mayor of San Antonio, was the Democrats' attempt to recapture the party optimism that then-Senate candidate Obama sparked at the 2004 convention. John Kerry didn't win, but that year marked the start of an ambitious Democratic plan to revitalize the party. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi muzzled her liberal inclinations to recruit and elect her "Majority Makers"—a crop of moderate and conservative Democrats who won Republican districts and delivered control of the House for the first time in 14 years. Democrats in 2006 also claimed the Senate, with savvy victories in states like Montana and Virginia. The party thumped Republicans in gubernatorial races, winning in the South (Arkansas), the Mountain West (Colorado), and in Ohio (for the first time since 1991). A vibrant candidate Obama further boosted Democratic ranks in 2008. By 2009, President Obama presided over what could fairly be called a big-tent coalition. The Blue Dog caucus had swelled to 51 members, representing plenty of conservative America. Democrats held the majority of governorships. Mr. Obama had won historic victories in Virginia and North Carolina. The prediction of liberal demographers John Judis and Ruy Teixeira's 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority"—lasting progressive dominance via a coalition of minorities, women, suburbanites and professionals—attracted greater attention among political analysts. It took Mr. Obama two years to destroy this potential, with an agenda that forced his party to field vote after debilitating vote—stimulus, ObamaCare, spending, climate change. The public backlash, combined with the president's mismanagement of the economy, has reversed Democrats' electoral gains and left a party smaller than at any time since the mid-1990s. Of the 21 Blue Dogs elected since 2006, five remain in office. The caucus is on the verge of extinction, as members have retired, been defeated in primaries waged by liberal activists, or face impossible re-elections. The GOP is set to take Senate seats in North Dakota and Nebraska, and maybe to overturn Democratic toeholds in states from Montana to Virginia. There is today a GOP senator in Massachusetts. Republicans claim 29 governorships and may gain two to four more this year. As for the presidential race, Republicans are in sight of taking back Virginia and North Carolina and are competitive in supposedly new Democratic strongholds like Colorado and New Mexico. The GOP is also making unexpected inroads in Wisconsin and Iowa. The real story of the Obama presidency is the degree to which he has pushed his party back toward its coastal and urban strongholds. All this was vividly on display in Charlotte this week. While the party's most vulnerable members aren't in outright mutiny against Mr. Obama, more than two dozen didn't risk attending the convention. In contrast to last week's GOP celebration of reformist GOP governors, the Charlotte podium was largely dominated by activists (Sandra Fluke, Lilly Ledbetter), the liberal congressional faithful (Mrs. Pelosi, Harry Reid), and urban mayors from failing states (Los Angeles's Antonio Villaraigosa, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel). While the GOP has feted its upcoming stars—including minority governors like New Mexico's Susana Martinez and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal—the president has done little to nurture his down-ballot partners. Where is the next generation of Democrats? Which brings us to Mr. Castro. Mr. Obama lit up the political scene in 2004 with a lofty convention speech that told a heartfelt story, appealed to the best of America, and never once mentioned George W. Bush. Mr. Castro, by contrast, was tasked by the Obama team with laying out the bitter Democratic themes of this election. His own eloquent story was weighed down by his job of ridiculing Mitt Romney, lauding government, and stoking class warfare. The comparisons of Mr. Castro in 2012 with Mr. Obama in 2004 are misplaced; Mr. Obama has made them impossible. Mr. Castro must be wondering what chance he has of higher office in Texas, which today has not one statewide elected Democrat. It's a question for Democrats across wide sections of the country. The liberals who supported Mr. Obama's expansion of the entitlement state are pinning everything on Mr. Obama's re-election, assuming it will cement their big-government gains and allow them to grind back congressional majorities in the future. But contemplate the situation if he loses. Consider a Democratic Party that may hold neither the White House nor Congress, that has disappeared in parts of the country, and that has few future Obama-like stars. Compare that to 2008. This is the party Barack Obama un-built.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) 923 Executive Orders in 40 Months

 Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months! What did Congress do in those 40 months? (The House - considerable. The Senate -nothing, not even a budget nor allowing any House bill to be considered.) A whole new order must prevail in Wash. DC as a result of this next election! Now look at these: -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the of all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. Feel free to verify the "executive orders" at will... and these are just the major ones ... Watch Obama's actions, not his words! By his actions he will show you where America is headed. .... Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to "harmonize" U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Here's another recent Obama Executive Order: Obama, with great glee, signed on March 16, 2012, his Executive Order 13603 redefining and creating new policy about America’s National Defense. Obama’s Executive order 13603 is “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” In black and white, Obama laid out his blueprint for taking over America and our economy by seizing control of: · “All forms of civil transportation”—forced labor. In other words, “induction” as the executive order delicately refers to military conscription · “All commodities and products capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals” · “Health resources, which include, but are not limited to: drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment” · “All forms of energy” · “All usable water from all sources” Scary yes—but it doesn’t stop there. Get this: federal officials would “issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”Maybe this is why so many government departments are buying millions of rounds of ammunition. Obama also has stated in his executive order that every government bureaucracy “shall act as necessary and appropriate.” The orders Obama has created makes this country socialistic/communistic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------