Obama Has A History of Speaking Before The Facts! Obama Could Be Re-elected!

 If Obama had a son would he have looked like this?

Obama purposely  politicized the latest mass killing but still could not tell the truth about the failure of gun laws. He ignored Chicago, his home town,  which has strong gun laws and yet leads the nation in deaths. every weekend there are a large number of killings yet, Obama remains silent.

We know he has a history of speaking out before the facts and randomly selects the events that suit his political agenda.

Most gun owners would not object to appropriate background checks as well as the type of guns allowed for purchase.  That said, it would still not prevent criminals and killers, like the above, from obtaining them.  Why?  Because the government  does not have enough staff to perform the checks nor is it technically equipped and bad people will always have access to what they seek.

You can trace part of the problem to President Carter who basically allowed the mentally challenged to administer their own medicines which, of course, they fail to do in too many cases.

Furthermore, , Obama's Alcohol and Firearm Agency sold guns to Mexican criminals and then denied they did. and a Border Agent was subsequently killed and Obama remained silent just like those sheep Netanyahu referred to in The U.N.

What political hypocrisy but at least PP spoke with a little passion. (See 1 below.)

I listened to some of PP's press conference today but not all of it.  Obama is a master at giving long answers to chew up time and limit the number of questions and phrasing his answers so that they reflect the difficulty of why things will take time and he has nothing to do with the mess he has gotten us into because he does not know what he is doing.

To the ear that hears but is basically uninformed it is understandable why so many think he is constantly under attack from those who want him to fail. I never want my president to fail unless it relates to something worse were he to succeed.

Obama is a failure because everything he has said and done has, all too frequently, gone the opposite of what he told us would happen..  Even his many lies have become evident. He is a dreamer who has an aversion to exercising power and when things go wrong, as a consequence, he either blames someone or distances himself from having any involvement. The man is incapable of connecting dots with his name on them. Since,  it is left to the informed to do so and since we are  "stupid, "  according to his own advisor, Dr. Gruber, my view that Obama could be re-elected stands were he able to run again.

Thank God the Constitution bars him from doing so.
===
Commentary by the son of a long time friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
===
Tomorrow we leave for , what could be a flooded, Edisto. We may not be able to get into the house we rented .  Time will tell.
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Obama Uses Oregon College Tragedy to Push Gun Control

President Barack Obama on Thursday angrily called for stricter U.S. gun laws after the latest mass murder in Oregon and took aim at the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby for blocking reform.

Appearing in the White House briefing room with a grim expression and an angry tone, Obama said it was not enough to offer prayers after major shootings continued to occur regularly throughout the country.

"As I said just a few months ago, and I said just a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough," Obama told reporters after the latest shooting at a community college in which 13 people were killed and some 20 people were wounded.

"It's not enough," he said.

Nodding to the arguments that such shootings are often committed by the mentally ill, Obama said it was clear that anyone who commits such crimes had a "sickness in their minds."

"But we are not the only country on Earth who has people with mental illnesses who want to do harm to other people," he said. "We are the only advanced country on Earth who sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months."

Obama spoke mainly without notes, angrily anticipating the arguments that gun advocates would brandish in the wake of the shooting. He said he knew his opponents would criticize him for politicizing a tragedy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

A sudden case of rule of law

The executive branch of the U.S. Government — yes, the same one administered by President Obama — appears to be looking closely into the conduct of Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting Hillary Clinton.

Following a request in late July by inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies, the FBI has begun investigating the potential mishandling of classified information by Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.  Despite her best efforts toignore, deny, deflect, misdirect, and redirect criticism over her decision to conduct official business through a private email server, and then to scrub the server clean, the wheels of justice have started to turn on Clinton.

Perhaps this development seems reasonable.  After all, if an official who is charged with safeguarding our nation’s most sensitive communications circumvents policies and procedures designed to protect them, then something should be done about it.

Then again, the agency that can do something is the Department of Justice.  Under President Obama, this agency does not have a track record of objectivity.  Consider the lack of accountability for the Operation Fast and Furious gun-running debacle, the IRS targeting of conservative advocacy groups, the self-dealing and gross malfeasance by VA bureaucrats, and the strong-arming of investigative journalists.  While a few political appointees have been eased out of their jobs under pressure from lawmakers, DOJ has not pursued charges against any ringleaders of the scandals.  If there still are investigations underway, DOJ is setting new standards for foot-dragging.  When is the last time we heard from the White House about any of these shameful episodes?

It’s not as if DOJ couldn’t move quickly if it wanted to.  Take the events in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore over the past year.  When white police officers harmed unarmed blacks, the government found a way to move federal investigations — and their resolutions — to the front of the queue.

When it suits a political agenda, the White House is all in.  In 2009, President Obama appointed a special prosecutor to investigate possible abuses by intelligence agencies in the wake of 9/11.  None of the alleged abuses occurred on his watch, so there was little political risk to the move (even if he later elected to quash any charges to avoid friction with the intelligence apparatus).

But when it comes to wrongdoing within his own administration, the president demurs.  In the case of IRS misconduct, he flatly dismissed the idea of a special prosecutor. “I think we’re going to be able to figure out exactly what happened, who was involved, what went wrong,” he told the press, “and we’re going to be able to implement steps to fix it.”  More than two years later, we are no closer to resolving the issue or restoring confidence in IRS impartiality.

From the very start, this administration has used a cherry-picker approach to law enforcement.  The letter of the law matters little when it comes to our immigration or drug statutes.  States are free to legislate in direct opposition to federal prohibitions against the sale of marijuana and cities are free to shield illegal aliens from ICE detention, all without fear of reprisal from the feds.  Despite laws on the books he once claimed tied his hands, President Obama issued executive orders blocking authorities from deporting whole classes of undocumented immigrants.   Defenders called it “prosecutorial discretion.”   Of course, when Arizona or Texas employed measures to beef up inadequate border security, no such discretion could be found.  The Obama administration came down hard.

All of which makes the probe into Clinton’s email practices curious.  Why would the president green-light an investigation of his would-be successor if he has the power to quash, or at least to slow-walk it?  Some attribute the decision to theindependence and integrity of his new attorney general.  Others see Frank Underwood-style maneuvers behind-the-scenes to engineer a Joe Biden candidacy.  There may be a bit of truth in both explanations, but my bet is simply that there is fire behind the smoke.  Hillary has tested the limits of our collective tolerance for the Clinton way of doing business.  Even President Obama lacks the stomach to run interference on this one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------