Obama breaks promise with jobless blacks

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-04-26-Obamas-broken-promise-to-help-blacks.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Column: Obama breaks promise with jobless blacks

By DeWayne Wickham

This is not an easy column for me to write. It's never easy to tell someone you like that he's a disappointment. I like Barack Obama. I liked him the first time we met back in 2006 when I took a small group of journalism students to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with the then-freshly minted U.S. senator.
I liked Obama even more when an aide to his presidential campaign invited me to a July 2007 speech he gave laying out his commitment to improve life for people in urban America — which for most politicians is a euphemism for black America.


"Today's economy has made it easier to fall into poverty. … Every American is vulnerable to the insecurities and anxieties of this new economy. And that's why the single most important focus of my economic agenda as president will be to pursue policies that create jobs and make work pay," Obama said that day to his mostly black audience.
At that time, the nation's overall unemployment rate was 4.7%. Whites had a jobless rate of 4.2% while the black unemployment rate stood at 8.1%. Today, the black rate is 15.5%, nearly double that of white job-seekers.
I don't blame Obama for the economic conditions that are responsible for so many blacks being out of work. The seeds of this problem were planted long before he moved into the Oval Office. But I do fault him for not doing more to fix this problem.
The poor in urban America, he said in that 2007 speech, "suffer most from a politics that has been tipped in favor of those with the most money, and influence, and power." And then he asked rhetorically, "How can a country like this allow it?" To which he answered, "We can't."
But so far, under his leadership, he has allowed it.
Finding work for the jobless is the best anti-poverty program this nation can mount. But while the Obama administration spends $608 million during the first 17 days of its involvement in Libya's civil war — it can muster neither the money nor the will to combat black unemployment.
The president's failure to fight this problem as vigorously as he wages war abroad gets a pass from black leaders, many of whom complain to me privately but remain silent in public. They're reluctant to challenge Obama the way Martin Luther King Jr. did Lyndon Johnson in 1967.
America "would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor" so long as it was involved in the Vietnam war, King said in a speech in which he called for an end to that bloody conflict.
Last month, as the Obama administration applauded the creation of 216,000 new jobs and a slight dip in the overall unemployment rate, the gap between whites and blacks without work widened as the black unemployment rate inched up.
In December 2009, when the black unemployment rate was just 5.5 percentage points higher than the national rate, Obama told USA TODAY that he didn't think he needed to do anything special to close this gap. Now that it is nearly 7 percentage points higher, black leaders should demand that the president devote as much attention on this problem as he has on ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and in pushing for immigration reform.
They should demand an end to the wasteful spending on wars that can't be won and insist that the resulting peace dividend be used to finance that revitalized urban policy — the one Obama not so long ago promised would be the focus of his economic agenda

No Easter Address?

What? No Easter Greeting?


by Keith Koffler on April 25, 2011, 11:11 am      http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/04/25/easter-greeting/

Just when I thought the current team running the White House might have used up all its allotted mistakes comes word that President Obama failed to issue either an Easter or a Good Friday greeting to the nation.
Now, let’s forget for a moment that these greetings, which presidents issue on many holidays and commemorations of events, are largely perfunctory and symbolic gestures that nobody cares about.

Until there’s a problem with them.

Fox News first caught the blunder and put it into context that makes the omission insulting to Christians. The mistake is odd enough to call into question just what Obama’s priorities are.

By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

The White House . . . did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president’s weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.

Obama, Fox notes, did head out to church yesterday and held an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House last week.

Obama is on a roll for religious holiday greeting screw ups. Fox News writes:

In 2010, Obama was criticized for releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.

And as I noted last week, the president released a Passover greeting this month that compared the ancient Jewish exodus from Egypt to the Arab political awakening this year, which would be a beautiful thing if most Arabs didn’t seek Israel’s destruction.

The president is, of course, hosting the Easter Egg Roll at the White House today. But Easter isn’t really about rolling eggs on a manicured lawn, now is it?

UPDATE: Asked during this afternoon’s briefing about the issue, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney suggested Obama’s “high profile” visit to a church Sunday should suffice.

“I’m not sure if we put out a statement or not, but he obviously personally celebrated Easter with his family,” Carney said, adding ”the president took his family out to church in a very high-profile way.”

Carney added that Obama is a “devoted Christian.”

No Mistakes. Really?

After criticizing Bush, Obama has make no mistakes he will admit to?  Really?


Obama: Mistakes? Can't think of any.

Byron York 04/20/11 11:34 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/obama-mistakes-cant-think-any


Seven years ago, in April 2004, President George W. Bush held a formal news conference in which he was asked, "What would your biggest mistake be…and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush's hemming and hawing answer -- in several minutes of flailing about, he never managed to come up with a single mistake to cite -- was widely criticized in the days that followed.



On Wednesday, President Obama held a town hall at the headquarters of Facebook in Palo Alto, California, during which he was asked, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" Obama, it turns out, is no better at analyzing his own missteps than Bush.

Obama Lied About Signing Statements.

Lordy, Lord how I hate hypocrats. That is what is so disappointing about this president. It was about "Change," it is now about lying. How can this man bold face lie to us? He clearly said, "NO" when asked about this on the campaign trail. Obama is no difference than other presidents and that is what is disappointing. There is no "Hope" or "Change." Obama is about about "Lies."

Jay Carney: Obama Was Never Opposed To Signing Statements http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/18/jay_carney_obama_was_never_opposed_to_signing_statements.html

Obama 2008: Bush Used Signing Statements To "Accumulate More Power" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/18/obama_2008_bush_used_signing_statements_to_accumulate_more_power.html

Jay Carney says President Obama was never against signing statements, just when President Bush "abused" them. Watch what then-Senator Obama said in 2008 while running for president and decide for yourself. "His concern was with what he saw as an abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration. So that the positions he took in signing statements on the budget bill entirely consistent with that position, you need to retain the right to, as president, to be able to issue those signing statements, but obviously they should not be abused," White House press secretary Jay Carney told the press on Monday.

Obama Lied; People died

I thought he was supposed to get us out of this war. 60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009 Monday, April 04, 2011 By Edwin Mora http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60-us-military-deaths-afghanistan-have-o At least 858 U.S. soldiers have died in the Afghanistan war since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. That equals 60.13 percent of the 1,427 American soldier fatalities so far in the ongoing 10-year war in that country.

Another Failed Campaing Pledge

Unfortunately, we are let down again. While on the campaign trail, we trusted the words, the hope, the change Obama promised. Well, no its "liar, liar, pants on fire." He lied again. While he hated on Bush for his "War on Terror," now that he is charge, he finds he is no better than Bush. In fact, he is worse. At least Bush was not dishonest on this issue and wasn't a hippiecrat. Another disappointment from Obama. Obama U-turn: US to try 9/11 accused at Guantanamo http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9134304/obama-uturn-us-to-try-911-accused-at-guantanamo/ WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a major about-face by the Obama administration, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators are to be tried by a military tribunal at Guantanamo rather than a civilian court in New York, a US official said Monday. Attorney General Eric Holder will officially announce the U-turn later on Monday, a US official told AFP on condition of anonymity, saying: "KSM will be tried at Guantanamo." Proceedings for co-accused Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Walid bin Attash, Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi will also be at the US naval base in southeastern Cuba rather than US federal courts, the official added. President Barack Obama has vowed to close Guantanamo, having held it up as a symbol of all that was wrong with the so-called "war on terror" waged by his predecessor George W. Bush. The high-profile trials of Sheikh Mohammed and the four other alleged Al-Qaeda figures -- a date has not yet been set -- provide the latest evidence that the detention center will stay open for some time. In one of his first acts as president in 2009, Obama halted trials at Guantanamo Bay and announced he planned to close the detention camp within a year. But he has been thwarted in his ambition by legal challenges in prosecuting suspects deemed to be at war with the United States and strong opposition from both friends and foes in Congress. Obama's position softened last month when he lifted a two-year freeze on new military trials for Guantanamo terror suspects, paving the way for Monday's decision.

Kill Team - Another Double Standard

Why can't we get this right Democrats. We whined and whined about impeach Bush, etc. Now it is our turn and do we cry for Obama's impeachment over the Kill Team photos? Not a word. That is hypocrisy at its finest. How can we be taken seriously when we refuse to own up? Shame on us, the democratic party. Rumsfeld on 'kill team' photos: 'Much worse' than Abu Ghraib http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/video-rumsfeld-kill-team-photos-worse-abu-ghraib/ Rolling Stone published horrific photos reportedly taken by members of the U.S. Military who allegedly were part of what is being called the "Kill Team." These individuals have been described by the Army, according to Rolling Stone, as a "rogue unit" operating completely on its own, "without the knowledge of its superiors.” Rolling Stone's Mark Boal reports: Indeed, it would have been hard not to know about the murders, given that the soldiers of 3rd Platoon took scores of photographs chronicling their kills and their time in Afghanistan. The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing Afghan civilians is less a reason for concern than a cause for celebration. "Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals," one soldier explained to investigators. "Everyone would say they're savages." One photo shows a hand missing a finger. Another depicts a severed head being maneuvered with a stick, and still more show bloody body parts, blown-apart legs, mutilated torsos. Several show dead Afghans, lying on the ground or on Stryker vehicles, with no weapons in view. In an interview with the Washington Times on Tuesday, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush, gave his thoughts on the recent Afghanistan "kill team" photos and described the alleged incident as "much worse" than the photos taken of U.S. soldiers posing with detainees and putting the prisoners in humiliating positions at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. TWT: What are your thoughts on the latest kill team photos out of Afghanistan? DONALD RUMSFELD: If they're the ones that I'm thinking of it's where some... there are some allegations that some soldiers killed some people. You know, I feel such a responsibility as an American that when people are in our custody, we treat them properly. It is always heartbreaking when we see that there are allegations and photographs or suggestions that people have mismanaged that process. And of course the courts will decide in this case. But it is interesting, in the case of Abhu Ghraib, that it was such an important press event and nobody was killed. And in this case, it looks like there are allegations that some people were actually killed. TWT: How does this stack up against the Abu Ghraib photos, for example? RUMSFELD: The situation, of course, is much worse if someone dies, but it's a sad thing. It's unfortunate. The overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform are professional. They handle themselves well. They treat people properly in our custody. And no question but that they are punished in the event that the courts and the military commissions under the uniform code of military justice decide that they've done something wrong. They get punished. Following the release of the Abu Ghraib photos between 2004 and 2006, eleven soldiers were all convicted on a number of charges in a court martial, dishonorably discharged and sent to prison. However, numerous left wing web sites like Move On and Antiwar.com, media outlets, and politicians on various levels, like both Democratic California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, called for not only President Bush to fire Mr. Rumsfeld but also called for Congress to impeach Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Abu Ghraib. Even Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican, spoke out against Secretary Rumsfeld in 2004 (h/t Media Research Center) Mr. Rumsfeld finally resigned from his post as Defense Secretary in 2006 after President Bush refused to accept his resignation two times before. While President Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a hold over from the Bush administration, was never a big favorite among liberals since the beginning of Mr. Obama's term, nevertheless. Compared to the calls for a Bush impeachment and a Rumsfeld firing over Abu Ghraib, few (if any) major media or politicians are currently calling for Secretary Gates' resignation or firing and an impeachment of President Obama over the alleged crimes of the Afghanistan "Kill Team." In fact, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, known for calling on Congress to impeach President Bush, recently pulled away from his call on Congress to impeach President Obama over U.S. airstrikes over Libya, Capitol Hill Blue reported on Tuesday.Secretary Rumsfeld steered clear of making any suggestions about whether or not his successor, Robert Gates, should resign. TWT: You spend a lot of time in your book talking about the Abu Ghraib photos and you offered your resignation to President Bush and he didn't accept it. I believe the quote in the book was: "Don, sometimes heads have to roll over this." Do you think that Sec. Gates should resign immediately over this? RUMSFELD: I'm not going to give anyone else any advice over this. I don't know the facts well I know. I know what I felt and I wrote about it in my book, my memoir:Known and Unknown. Finally, Mr. Rumsfeld gave the Washington Times insight on what he thinks the biggest threat to the United States is presently. TWT:What do you think the biggest threat to the country is? RUMSFELD: I think the biggest problem we face is our intelligence. The weapons are so lethal today, that simply intelligence has to be able to teach us and help us understand the kinds of surprises that could ever occur. It's a big world. It's a complicated world. There are people out there determined to kill innocent men women and children...particularly Americans. The need to improve our intelligence gathering capability is the single most critical thing.

Obama's Abu Ghraib - No one is Talking About It

Oh my How Words Come Back to Haunt Us. It is a sad day when everything Obama says is hypocritical. Can we no longer trust anyone? How can he say one thing and do the other? We are losing all faith in the Democratic Party. "Yes we can" has turned into "I speak with forked tong."


Obama’s Abu Ghraib: The Stuff Hits the Fan
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/21/breaking-obamas-abu-ghraib-the-stuff-hits-the-fan/

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.
Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed:
[U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.
What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed.

Peace Peace Revoked

Take Obama's Peace Prize
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=

Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.

'Two years ago we heard that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but is he defending peace in the world now, or isn't he instead fomenting violence?' Morales told reporters, days after Obama ordered the bombing of Libya military targets as part of an UN-approved effort to protect civilians.

'How is it possible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has launched an invasion, a bombing? It's a violation, an assault, an aggression,' said Morales, one of Latin America's most left-leaning leaders and a vocal critic of the United States.

'Obama is the leader of group of thugs who led an assault and an invasion - and that has nothing to do with defending human rights,' he declared.

Obama receive the prize in December 2009, less than a year after taking office.

In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Obama referred to himself as 'the commander-in-chief of a nation in the midst of two wars' and said armed conflict was at times necessary.

Obama gave his $US1.4 million ($A1.4 million) Nobel Peace Prize award money to 10 charities, including groups working on Haiti relief and supporting military families.

Worst President Ever?

BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-
Friday March 18,2011 By Anna Pukas

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...


Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Obama's State of the Union Was Plagiarism?

Obama's State of the Union Was Tantamount to Plagiarism
By Alvin Felzenberg

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/alvin-felzenberg/2011/01/26/obamas-state-of-the-union-was-tantamount-to-plagiarism

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obama’s second State of the Union address contained enough recycled ideas and lines lifted from speeches of others to make historians wince. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.

Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the president’s best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. After quoting Robert Kennedy early on, Obama tried to have his listeners believe that everything else he said that we might remember were his or his writers’ creations. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obama’s listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed “the rest of the story.” [Take the poll: Was Obama’s State of the Union speech a success?]

Early in his address, Obama said that he wanted the nation he leads to be a "light to the world." The last president who set such a mission for the nation he led, and in those exact words, was Woodrow Wilson.

Obama’s concept of the “American family” may well have had its origins in the first State of the State address New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered in 1983. Cuomo proclaimed the state of New York as a “family.” He also talked about multiple partnerships, both public and private.

In a 1991 Washington, D.C. address sponsored by conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, Margaret Thatcher coined a phrase Obama made his own in his second State of the Union address. Thatcher told her American audience that "no other nation has been built upon an idea." In a slightly revised form, Obama, in his second State of the Union address, all but repeated it, using additional words.

Obama’s pointed mutterings about a second “Sputnik Moment” being upon us and his recollection of how American policymakers responded to the last one with increased expenditures on infrastructure, science, technology, and education were clearly intended to evoke the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His setting of specific deadlines and goals was vintage JFK, but for the absence of any sense of challenge to his audience, list of benefits the United States would derive from them, or any semblance of a shared adventure the American people were about to embark upon. [Read Robert Schlesinger: Obama Not the First to Use 'Sputnik Moment.']

There was a certain Back to the Future feel to the masterful tributes Obama paid those Ronald Reagan might have described as “ordinary heroes.” After all, it was Reagan who began the practice of inviting citizens who had done extraordinary things to sit beside the first lady in the House gallery as the president recited their achievements. It was also Reagan who reminded his listeners that the greatness of America emerged not from the hand of government, but through the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]

Obama received his most sustained applause when he said, "I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." Leaving aside the faulty grammar (people change places with people, not with nations), the poaching from John F. Kennedy's immortal inaugural address was obvious enough for the most historical of Obama's listeners to notice. ("I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.") That Obama could utter almost identical words days after paying tribute to Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of the delivery of that famous speech and not making reference to it suggests a self-absorption rare even among presidents. [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

Most pointedly, the low point of Obama’s speech came when he brought back government re-organization from the ash heap of failed efforts of previous presidents who sought to save money without inflicting pain on a public that had grown accustomed to government largesse. This one, like all that talk about all those green energy jobs that lay before us, had fallen out of the presidential repertoire with retirement of Jimmy Carter. Obama might have had the decency to have Carter on hand to witness the moment. He will have another chance should he, when he delivers his budget, bring back that other Carter flop from yesteryear, “zero based budgeting.” [See a slide show of 10 worst presidents.]

Even Obama’s feigned attempt at humor had an antecedent in the remarks of a predecessor who spun better yarns than this president. Obama informed his listeners that salmon comes under the jurisdiction of one department when swimming in fresh water and under another when swimming in salt water. He rhetorically inquired what happened to the fish when “smoked.”

Somewhere in the White House library resides a published letter Franklin Roosevelt wrote to an adviser in which he complained that some bears were the property of the Interior Department, while others belonged the National Parks System. FDR, tongue in cheek, warned of a pending custody battle over cubs that emerged from illicit unions of bears crossing departmental jurisdictions. [Read A Brief History of the State of the Union Address.]

It would appear that the only president of note whose imprint was absent in Obama’s long awaited and much-anticipated speech was Obama. This was supposed to have been the moment when the nation found out whether he was at the core a Rooseveltian liberal of a Clintonian centrist. What it got was a cut and pasted version of great and not-so-great State of the Union and other addresses of the past.

Sometime last year, many suggested that Obama would have an easier time getting his message across if he was less dependent on his teleprompter. This may be the year his writers are advised to throw away their books of political quotations. Then we may finally find out what the president truly believes and what he hopes to achieve in the office he so ardently sought.

Obama's Newest Ally - France

France is our biggest ally, declares Obama: President's blow to Special Relationship with Britain
By Tim Shipman 11th January 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346006/Barack-Obama-declares-France-biggest-ally-blow-Special-Relationship-Britain.html

The President risked offending British troops in Afghanistan by saying that French president Nicolas Sarkozy is a ‘stronger friend’ than David Cameron.

The remarks, during a White House appearance with Mr Sarkozy, will reinforce the widely-held view in British diplomatic circles that Mr Obama has less interest in the Special Relationship than any other recent American leader.

The comments follow a pattern of coldness towards the UK. When Gordon Brown was prime minister, Mr Obama snubbed his requests for meetings in the U.S.

He also denounced Britain during his inauguration speech.
The UK has lost nearly 350 troops in the war against the Taliban – seven times as many as France.

And there are more than 10,000 British soldiers serving in Helmand province, compared with just 3,850 Frenchmen.Mr Obama's stance was swiftly condemned in Westminster.

Seriously, Mr. President?

Obama said he would bring a gun to a knife fight?



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

June 14, 2008, 1:29 PM ET.
Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’


Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Philadelphia.

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

The comment drew some laughs and applause. But it also struck a chord with his Republican rival. John McCain’s campaign immediately accused the Democratic candidate of playing the politics of fear. They also mentioned that Obama said he would use a gun that would be illegal under Obama’s plans to cut down on illegal firearms.

Left Wing Pothead Murders as a Right Wing Action

Funny how his classmates describe him as a "left-wing" "ptohead" but the media calls it "right-wing" action

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead"


http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

versus

Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over rightwing rhetoric in US
Sarah Palin at centre of storm over political vitriol after spree leaves six dead and congresswoman in critical condition


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-rightwing-rhetoric

Dem Congress at Lowest Point Ever

Congress' Job Approval Rating Worst in Gallup History

Thirteen percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/Congress-Job-Approval-Rating-Worst-Gallup-History.aspx

December 15, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.

The prior low approval rating for Congress was 14% in July 2008 when the United States was dealing with record-high gas prices and the economy was in recession.

The current results are based on a Dec. 10-12 Gallup poll, conducted as Congress is finishing work on an important lame-duck session. The session has been highlighted by the agreement on taxes forged last week by President Obama and Republicans in Congress. The tax deal preserves the 2001 and 2003 income tax rates for all Americans for two years, revises the estate tax, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed for a year, and reduces payroll taxes for American workers. It is expected to pass despite vocal opposition from some lawmakers.

Americans are generally more positive than negative toward the deal, but many Democrats in Congress oppose it.

Frustration with the tax deal among Democrats in the general population could be a major reason for Americans' historically low approval rating of Congress. That frustration could be opposition to the bill's particulars or frustration with the Democrats in Congress opposing the president's deal. Democrats' approval of Congress is down significantly, to 16% now, from 29% in November. The November poll was conducted after Republicans won control of the House of Representatives for 2011-2012 in the midterm elections, so the drop in this month's numbers is not a reaction to the Democrats' midterm losses.