BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE HILL

"Obama readies fall campaign push, but some Dems say no thanks"


Alexander Bolton and Amie Parnes

2 SEPTEMBER 2018

Former President Obama is set to dive into the midterm elections next week with a speech in Illinois where he is expected to urge Democrats across the country to vote - addressing a problem that plagued the party in 2016.

Obama has kept a low political profile since leaving office, but sources familiar with his plans say he will soon hit the campaign trail to help Democrats in their quest to take back the House, protect vulnerable Senate incumbents and win state legislative races.


The former president will kick off his push by delivering a speech at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on Friday.

In the weeks ahead, Obama will also campaign in California, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, a person familiar with his schedule said.

Not all Democrats want Obama's help.

Democratic candidates running in states that President Trump won by double digits in 2016 would prefer that the former president stay far away.

Some Democrats in pro-Trump states, such as Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), say they hope Obama will campaign for them.

Others, such as Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), want to keep the race locked on the battle between themselves and their state rivals, fearing a high-profile surrogate like Obama could distract from the strategy.

"We're not going to use any surrogates."

"Surrogates are fine but we don't need them."

"The race is myself and Matt Rosendale and that's the way we want to keep it," Tester told The Hill, referring to his GOP challenger.

Asked if she thought Obama might show up in North Dakota, Heitkamp said: "Nope, no."

"He threatened to campaign against me once so I don't think he's coming out there," she said.

While the former president remains extremely popular with the Democratic base, especially among African-American voters, Democrats fear his entrance into some battleground states could inadvertently rev up conservatives and pro-Trump voters.

"Trump wants nothing more than a foil."

"He knows he can activate the other side," said a source familiar with Obama's thinking.

The former president is "going to be involved this fall in a very Obamaesque, smart way," the source added.

Democrats say that one way Obama can have a big impact on races is by urging infrequent voters to show up to the polls in November, something that will be a major theme of the former president's speech on Friday.

"He will echo his call to reject the rising strain of authoritarian politics and policies."

"And he will preview arguments he'll make this fall, specifically that Americans must not fall victim to our own apathy by refusing to do the most fundamental thing demanded of us as citizens: vote," said Obama communications director Katie Hill.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said the party welcomes Obama's help but noted it's up to individual candidates whether to invite him to their states.

"We welcome his participation in these races as a DSCC."

"Every senate candidate will decide in conversation with President Obama whether it makes sense for him to come to their states," Van Hollen said on CSPAN's "Newsmakers" program last month.

Van Hollen noted that Obama held a joint fundraiser for the DSCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last year.

Obama also held a fundraiser in May for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who is running in a state Trump won by 19 points.

Still, the former president has held off on endorsing Democratic senators running in states won by Trump, even though he has backed Democratic candidates down the ballot in some of those states.

For example, while he endorsed Richard Cordray, Betty Sutton and Steve Dettelback, the Democratic candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in Ohio, respectively - as well as two U.S. House candidates and a slew of state House candidates in the Buckeye State - he did not endorse Brown, the incumbent U.S. senator.

Asked why his name was missing from Obama's endorsement list, Brown said, "I don't have any idea" but added, "I make nothing of that."

The Democratic senator noted that Obama is likely to make additional endorsements and said he would welcome his support.

"I'd love for him to come to Ohio and help us with voter turnout for Cordray and for me," he said.

Democratic sources say Obama will campaign with Casey in Pennsylvania, even though the former president also didn't include him on the list of candidates from the Keystone State he endorsed last month.

Obama announced his support for two House candidates in Pennsylvania, Madeleine Dean and Susan Wild, and three state house candidates, but not Casey.

Trump carried both Ohio and Pennsylvania over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

He won Ohio by 8 points and Pennsylvania by less than 1 point.

When Obama made his first round of endorsements in August, he stayed away from Democratic Senate candidates with the exception of Rep. Jacky Rosen (D), who is running to unseat Sen. Dean Heller (R) in Nevada - the only Senate battleground that Trump lost.

Obama's endorsement in state and local races is less likely to hurt Democratic candidates because those contests are often less partisan than federal races.

The GOP strategy in Senate races in red states is to tie the centrist Democratic incumbents to party leaders in Washington.

One Democratic strategist said the lack of endorsements from Obama falls under the 'do no harm' category.

"Both of those senators are doing well their respective states and they don't exactly need Obama's seal of approval."

"In fact, it might do more harm than good," the strategist said.

"Obama is still popular with certain folks in those states but he's not exactly popular with some others."


But Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist, said he doesn't think it has to do with unpopularity but a focus on races that need his support.

"There are others who have tougher races than Sherrod's and Casey's," he said.

"Those races are shaping up to be easier than some others...And they have robust war chests so they don't really need Barack Obama's endorsement."

Rocha said he wouldn't expect Obama to endorse senators like Tester and Heitkamp.

"Places like that, they're probably not advocating to get that endorsement."

A person familiar with Obama's thinking cautioned against reading too much into his endorsements, noting that he will come out with another round before Election Day.

Casey expects to receive Obama's support and to campaign with him in the next few weeks.

"We look forward to campaigning with him, we hope, in the fall."

"I hope to."

"I don't know what the schedule will be," he said.

Casey said he thinks Obama would help Democrats up and down the ballot if he campaigns in Pennsylvania and noted that Obama has made it a priority to focus on local races in order to give Democrats more leverage in future congressional redistricting.

Patrick Rodenbush, communications director for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said Obama has been very helpful in trying to give Democrats more influence over future congressional district maps.

"He helped us with fundraising since we were launched in 2017," he noted.

"He cut a video for us in July about the stakes of redistricting and why these elections in November matter."

"He's going to hit the road in September."

"We expect he'll talk about the issue of redistricting when he's out on the trail," he added.

Obama also headlined fundraisers for the Democratic National Committee in September of last year and this past June.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

HUSSEIN OBAMA SOUNDS LIKE HE IS RUNNING FOR A THIRD TERM IN OFFICE HERE ...

AND WHEN HUSSEIN SAYS POLITICAL DIVISION IS MORE MANUFACTURED THAN REAL, HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE HE AND HILLARY CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAVE BEEN THE MANUFACTURERS OF THAT DIVISION ...

MARKETWATCH

"Obama claims ownership of U.S.’s economic recovery as he blasts Trump"


By Steve Goldstein

Published: Sept 7, 2018 3:05 p.m. ET

Former President Barack Obama on Friday used a speech at the University of Illinois to sharply criticize his successor as well as claim ownership of the U.S. economic recovery.

Speaking in Urbana, Ill., where he received an award for ethics in government, Obama recalled that the U.S. economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month when he entered office.

“We worked hard to end that crisis but also break some of these longer-term trends,” said Obama, who is planning a series of campaign trips ahead of the midterm elections in November.

“By the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high, and the uninsured rate had hit an all-time low and wages were rising,” he said.

“I mention all this so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started."

“I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on ... I have to kind of remind them, actually those job numbers are kind of the same as they were in 2015 and 2016.”

On that, Obama is correct.

U.S. job growth averaged 226,000 per month in 2015, 195,000 in 2016, 182,000 in 2017 and, so far this year, 207,000.

Data also show a pickup in business and consumer confidence after Trump’s election.

The U.S. is on track to grow more than 3% in 2018, a rate of economic expansion not recorded over the course of a full calendar year since the second term of the George W. Bush administration.

At a North Dakota event, Trump responded.

“Obama was trying to take credit for this incredible thing that’s happening,” Trump said.

“I have to say this to President Obama - if the Dems got in with their agenda in November of almost 2 years ago, instead of having 4.2 up, I believe honestly we’d have 4.2 down,” he said, referring to GDP growth of 4.2% in the second quarter.

Obama meanwhile had a broader attack on Trump than just the economy.

Mentioning Trump by name, Obama said political division is more manufactured than real.


“Sometimes the backlash comes from people who are genuinely, if wrongly, fearful of change."

"More often it’s manufactured by the powerful and privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep up cynical because it helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege,” he said.

“And you happen to be coming of age during one of those moments."

"It did not start with Donald Trump."

"He is a symptom, not the cause,” Obama said to applause.

Obama went further in directly attacking Trump.

“We are supposed to stand up to discrimination."

"And we sure as heck are supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers,” he said to applause from the university audience.

“How hard can that be?"

"Saying that Nazis are bad?”

Obama added that he complained plenty about Fox News during his eight years in office, “but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama ... ewer_click
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"Opinion: Joseph Stiglitz debunks the myth of secular stagnation"


By Joseph E. Stiglitz

Published: Sept 6, 2018 1:50 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, some economists argued that the United States, and perhaps the global economy, was suffering from “secular stagnation,” an idea first conceived in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

Economies had always recovered from downturns.

But the Great Depression had lasted an unprecedented length of time.

Many believed that the economy recovered only because of government spending on World War II, and many feared that with the end of the war, the economy would return to its doldrums.

Something, it was believed, had happened, such that even with low or zero interest rates, the economy would languish.

For reasons now well understood, these dire predictions fortunately turned out to be wrong.

Those responsible for managing the 2008 recovery (the same individuals bearing culpability for the under-regulation of the economy in its pre-crisis days, to whom President Barack Obama inexplicably turned to fix what they had helped break) found the idea of secular stagnation attractive, because it explained their failures to achieve a quick, robust recovery.

So, as the economy languished, the idea was revived: Don’t blame us, its promoters implied, we’re doing what we can.

The events of the past year have put the lie to this idea, which never seemed very plausible.

The sudden increase in the U.S. deficit, from around 3% to almost 6% of gross domestic product, owing to a poorly designed regressive tax bill and a bipartisan expenditure increase, has boosted growth to around 4% and brought unemployment down to a 18-year low.

These measures may be ill-conceived, but they show that with enough fiscal support, full employment can be attained, even as interest rates rise well above zero.

The Obama administration made a crucial mistake in 2009 in not pursuing a larger, longer, better-structured, and more flexible fiscal stimulus.


Had it done so, the economy’s rebound would have been stronger, and there would have been no talk of secular stagnation.

As it was, only those in the top 1% saw their incomes grow during the first three years of the so-called recovery.

Some of us warned at the time that the downturn was likely to be deep and long, and that what was needed was stronger and different from what Obama proposed.

I suspect that the main obstacle was the belief that the economy had just experienced a little “bump,” from which it would quickly recover.

Put the banks in the hospital, give them loving care (in other words, hold none of the bankers accountable or even scold them, but rather boost their morale by inviting them to consult on the way forward), and, most important, shower them with money, and soon all would be well.

But the economy’s travails were deeper than this diagnosis suggested.

The fallout from the financial crisis was more severe, and massive redistribution of income and wealth toward the top had weakened aggregate demand.

The economy was experiencing a transition from manufacturing to services, and market economies don’t manage such transitions well on their own.

What was needed was more than a massive bank bailout.

The U.S. needed a fundamental reform of its financial system.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation went some way, though not far enough, in preventing banks from doing harm to the rest of us; but it did little to ensure that the banks actually do what they are supposed to do, focusing more, for example, on lending to small and medium-size enterprises.

More government spending was necessary, but so, too, were more active redistribution and pre-distribution programs — addressing the weakening of workers’ bargaining power, the agglomeration of market power by large corporations, and corporate and financial abuses.

Likewise, active labor-market and industrial policies might have helped those areas suffering from the consequences of deindustrialization.

Instead, policy makers failed to do enough even to prevent poor households from losing their homes.

The political consequences of these economic failures were predictable and predicted: it was clear that there was a risk that those who were so badly treated would turn to a demagogue.


No one could have predicted that the U.S. would get one as bad as Donald Trump: a racist misogynist bent on destroying the rule of law, both at home and abroad, and discrediting America’s truth-telling and assessing institutions, including the media.

A fiscal stimulus as large as that of December 2017 and January 2018 (and which the economy didn’t really need at the time) would have been all the more powerful a decade earlier when unemployment was so high.

The weak recovery was thus not the result of “secular stagnation”; the problem was inadequate government policies.

Here, a central question arises: Will growth rates in coming years be as strong as they were in the past?

That, of course, depends on the pace of technological change.

Investments in research and development, especially in basic research, are an important determinant, though with long lags; cutbacks proposed by the Trump administration do not bode well.

But even then, there is a lot of uncertainty.

Growth rates per capita have varied greatly over the past 50 years, from between 2% and 3% a year in the decades after World War II to 0.7% in the last decade.

But perhaps there’s been too much growth fetishism — especially when we think of the environmental costs, and even more so if that growth fails to bring much benefit to the vast majority of citizens.

There are many lessons to be learned as we reflect on the 2008 crisis, but the most important is that the challenge was — and remains — political, not economic: there is nothing that inherently prevents our economy from being run in a way that ensures full employment and shared prosperity.

Secular stagnation was just an excuse for flawed economic policies.

Unless and until the selfishness and myopia that define our politics — especially in the U.S. under Trump and his Republican enablers — is overcome, an economy that serves the many, rather than the few, will remain an impossible dream.


Even if GDP increases, the incomes of the majority of citizens will stagnate.

This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate — The Myth of Secular Stagnation.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stigl ... ewer_click
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"Opinion: Setting the record straight on secular stagnation"


By Lawrence H. Summers

Published: Sept 6, 2018 1:48 p.m. ET

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — Joseph Stiglitz recently dismissed the relevance of secular stagnation to the American economy, and in the process attacked (without naming me) my work in the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

I am not a disinterested observer, but this is not the first time that I find Stiglitz’s policy commentary as weak as his academic theoretical work is strong.


Stiglitz echoes conservatives like John Taylor in suggesting that secular stagnation was a fatalistic doctrine invented to provide an excuse for poor economic performance during the Obama years.

This is simply not right.

The theory of secular stagnation, as advanced by Alvin Hansen and echoed by me, holds that, left to its own devices, the private economy may not find its way back to full employment following a sharp contraction, which makes public policy essential.

I think this is what Stiglitz believes, so I don’t understand his attacks.

In all of my accounts of secular stagnation, I stressed that it was an argument not for any kind of fatalism, but rather for policies to promote demand, especially through fiscal expansion.

In 2012, Brad DeLong and I argued that fiscal expansion would likely pay for itself.

I also highlighted the role of rising inequality in increasing saving and the role of structural changes toward the demassification of the economy in reducing demand.

What about the policy record?

Stiglitz condemns the Obama administration’s failure to implement a larger fiscal stimulus policy and suggests that this reflects a failure of economic understanding.

He was a signatory to a Nov. 19, 2008, letter also signed by noted progressives James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, and Larry Mishel calling for a stimulus of $300 billion to $400 billion — less than half of what the Obama administration proposed.

So matters were less clear in prospect than in retrospect.

We on the Obama economic team believed that a stimulus of at least $800 billion — and likely more — was desirable, given the gravity of the economic situation.

We were told by those on the new president’s political team to generate as much validation as possible for a large stimulus because big numbers approaching $1 trillion would generate “sticker shock” in the political system.

So we worked to encourage a variety of economists, including Stiglitz, to offer larger estimates of what was appropriate, as reflected in the briefing memo I prepared for Obama.

Despite the incoming president’s popularity and an all-out political effort, the Recovery Act passed by the thinnest of margins, with doubts about its ultimate passage lingering until the last moment.

I cannot see the basis for the argument that a substantially larger fiscal stimulus was feasible.

And the effort to seek a much larger one certainly would have meant more delay at a time when the economy was collapsing — and could have led to the defeat of fiscal expansion.

While I wish the political climate had been different, I think Obama made the right choices in approaching fiscal stimulus.

It is of course also highly regrettable that after the initial Recovery Act, Congress refused to support a variety of Obama’s proposals for infrastructure and targeted tax credits.

Unrelated to the topic of secular stagnation, Stiglitz takes a swipe at me by saying that Obama turned to “the same individuals bearing culpability for the under-regulation of the economy in its pre-crisis days” and expected them “to fix what they had helped break.”

I find this a bit rich.

Under the auspices of the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) Fannie Mae, Stiglitz published a paper in 2002 arguing that the chance that the mortgage lender’s capital would be depleted was less than one in 500,000, and in 2009 he called for nationalization of the U.S. banking system.

So I would expect Stiglitz to be well aware that hindsight is clearer than foresight.


What about the Clinton administration record on financial regulation?

With hindsight, it clearly would have been better if we had foreseen the need for legislation like the 2010 Dodd-Frank reforms and had a way to enact it with a Republican-controlled Congress.

And certainly we did not foresee the financial crisis that came eight years after we left office.

Nor did we anticipate the ways in which credit default swaps would mushroom after 2000.

We did, however, advocate for GSE reform and for measures to rein in predatory lending, which, if enacted by Congress, would have done much to forestall the accumulation of risks before 2008.

I have not seen a convincing causal argument linking the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the financial crisis.

The observation that most of the institutions involved — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, WaMu, and Wachovia — were not covered by Glass-Steagall calls into question its centrality.

Yes, Citi and Bank of America were centrally involved, but the activities that generated major losses were fully permissible under Glass-Steagall.

And, in important respects, the repeal of Glass-Steagall actually enabled the resolution of the crisis, by permitting the merger of Bear and JPMorgan Chase and by allowing the Federal Reserve to open its discount window for Morgan Stanley and Goldman when they otherwise could have been sources of systemic risk.

The other principal attack on the Clinton administration’s record targets the deregulation of derivatives in 2000.

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish we had not supported this legislation.


But, given the extreme deregulatory approach of President George W. Bush’s administration, it defies belief to suggest that it would have created major new rules regarding derivatives but for the 2000 act; so I am not sure how consequential our decisions were.

It is also important to recall that we pursued the 2000 legislation not because we wanted to deregulate for its own sake, but rather to remove what the career lawyers at the Treasury, the Fed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission saw as systemic risk arising from legal uncertainty surrounding derivatives contracts.

More important than litigating the past is thinking about the future.

Even if we disagree about past political judgements and about the use of the term “secular stagnation,” I am glad that an eminent theorist like Stiglitz agrees with what I intended to emphasize in resurrecting that theory: We cannot rely on interest-rate policies to ensure full employment.

We must think hard about fiscal policies and structural measures to support sustained and adequate aggregate demand.

Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury (1999-2001) and director of the National Economic Council (2009-2010), is a former president of Harvard University, where he is currently University Professor.

This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate — Setting the Record Straight on Secular Stagnation.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/setti ... 2018-09-06
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 9, 2018 at 10:12 pm

Paul Plante says :

My dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, dude; let me say that the only thing better than opening the Cape Charles Mirror each Sunday is coming across a screed or polemic or rant written by yourself, and today was one of those days when I said to the world, “Hooray, Chas Cornweller is here to make our day,” and such it is, Chas Cornweller in spades, where you say Woodard’s book has created an avalanche of backlash and an earthquake whiplash with both the media and the public.

To which I respond, no, it hasn’t.

It’s not even a topic of conversation.

Outside of yourself, Chas Cornweller, people consider it a non-event.

In a few weeks, it will be in the remaindered bin along with that sniffly, crying and whining piece full of empty excuses that Hillary Clinton wrote after she got trounced by Trump in this last election.

Then you say “The picture painted of our present Commander-In-Chief is one of a paranoid, unprepared president who is out of touch with the reality of today’s America.”

Do you realize, Chas Cornweller, that that description applies as well to Lyndon Baines Johnson and fits Barack Hussein Obama to a tee, as does the reference to someone “who tape-loops over and over those political points that keep winning him favor with his base.”

Obama is also a master at deception because it is what he knows and has used for his entire life to manipulate the situation for the betterment of his personal gain and position.

And when you say Woodward shows us an administration reacting constantly to a child-man who knows neither the depth or scope of America’s responsibilities, nor has the wherewithal to deal with these responsibilities, an administration ramming through policies that enable the very rich and very powerful to maintain and solidify that power while the policies to protect the rest of us are daily eroded away, you are talking about as book that very well could have been about Obama, who is back on the political stump in America, perhaps looking to be drafted for a third term in office, who was quoted in the Marketwatch story “Obama claims ownership of U.S.’s economic recovery as he blasts Trump” by Steve Goldstein published Sept. 7, 2018 saying as follows:

“Political division is more manufactured than real.”

“More often it’s manufactured by the powerful and privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep up cynical because it helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege.”

“It did not start with Donald Trump.”

“He is a symptom, not the cause,” Obama said to applause.

end quotes

Pay heed to those words from Obama himself, Chas Cornweller, while there is still time to extricate yourself from the corner you are painting yourself into here – Trump is not the cause – he is merely the symptom.

The political division in America was manufactured by the elitist Obama himself beginning when he first ran for the presidency as we see from the Guardian article “Obama angers midwest voters with guns and religion remark” by Ed Pilkington in New York @edpilkington on 14 Apr. 2008, as follows:

Barack Obama was forced onto the defensive at the weekend over unguarded comments he made about small-town voters across the midwest.

Obama was caught in an uncharacteristic moment of loose language.

Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The comments were seized on by his rival for the Democratic party candidacy, Hillary Clinton, who saw in them the hope of reviving her flagging campaign by turning voters in the important Pennsylvania primary on April 22 against what she classed as Obama’s revealed “elitism”.

“I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America,” she said on Saturday.

“His remarks are elitist and out of touch.” Clinton campaigners in North Carolina handed out stickers saying: “I’m not bitter.”

Obama’s comments are potentially incendiary in the Pennsylvania rust belt.

Analysts speculated that the remarks could give white working-class voters the excuse they needed not to vote for Obama, whose candidacy has been regarded with scepticism in the state but had shown some signs of growing momentum.

The comments came to light as a result of the Huffington Post’s groundbreaking experiment in citizen journalism, Off The Bus.

The website runs a network of about 1,800 unpaid researchers, interviewers and writers.

One of those writers, Mayhill Fowler, broke the story, despite being a paid-up supporter of Obama.

She attended a fundraising event in San Francisco on April 6 and recorded Obama’s speech.

Fowler sat on the material for days, conflicted about what to do with it.

She only published the comments last Friday.

“She had some real reservations about the story as an Obama supporter,” Amanda Michel, the director of Off The Bus, told the Guardian.

“But she thought as a citizen journalist she had a duty to report the event, despite her support for Barack Obama.”

Obama initially reacted to the resultant media firestorm over the weekend by trying to stand by his comments.

But he later apologised, saying: “If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

Clinton will now hope the controversy will provide her with the break she desperately needs in Pennsylvania.

She requires a substantial win to sustain her campaign, but recent polls have suggested Obama had eroded some of her advantage.

end quotes

There, my dear friend, Chas Cornweller, is Obama creating the division and anger that put Trump in the white house.

But for Obama, Trump would never have been president.

And then Obama came back again and ran his mouth some further and divided America even further in the Washington Post article “Obama revives his ‘cling to guns or religion’ analysis — for Donald Trump supporters,” by Janell Ross on
December 21, 2015, as follows:

In April 2008, then-senator Barack Obama, a relative upstart Democrat from Illinois, was locked in a presidential primary with then-senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Pennsylvania’s important primary was less than two weeks away, making Pennsylvania the temporary center of the political universe.

Then, the candidate whom some reporters were already describing as almost preternaturally aware of the American voter psyche made what just about everyone considers a mistake.

At a San Francisco-area fundraiser, Obama took a shot at explaining the mostly white voters in those hard-scrabble and once-booming Pennsylvania industrial towns.

He was speaking to a largely wealthy and well-educated California audience, and these Pennsylvanians were people that, in the minds of many liberals living along the nation’s coasts, seemed to be voting against their own personal interests.

They seemed angry and politically confused, casting their votes with some regularity for conservatives who support, without modification, the trade deals, labor practices and shrinking wages that were making these voters’ lives so hard.

These are the people the 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas” was talking about.

An unpaid “citizen-journalist” and Obama supporter following and writing about the Obama campaign for the Huffington Post — at her own expense — was at the fundraiser and, to her credit, reported precisely what Obama had said:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.”

“And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.”

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Bam.

Obama had made not only the rookie political mistake of appearing to diminish or disparage Americans’ affection for guns and God; he had also displayed the temerity to talk about a group of Americans accustomed to viewing themselves simply as “regular Americans” or the American norm — not as if they were just one important segment of a rapidly changing American mosaic.

He had described these white, working-class Americans who do not have college degrees or access to the ever-expanding universe of tech- and thought-centered jobs as understandably frightened, struggling and politically misguided — or perhaps anesthetized into believing that more guns and more God would solve their problems.

Needless to say, Clinton pounced, calling Obama an “elitist.”

Soon, Obama was, according to the Clinton camp, a candidate who didn’t understand and couldn’t lay claim to the votes of “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”

Therefore, she was the better bet.

We all know how that turned out.

So here we are, seven years later, and a now President Obama has said some things about this same set of voters — white Americans, and specifically men with limited education who once had near-exclusive access to industrial jobs that paid family-sustaining wages — and the Republican candidate who so many of them seem to support, Donald Trump.

Here’s a portion of what Obama told NPR News in the interview airing Monday:

“I do think that when you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flatlining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck.”

“You combine those things, and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear.”

“Some of it justified, but just misdirected.”

“I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that.”

“That’s what he’s exploiting during the course of his campaign.

Sound at all familiar?

It should.

Obama just made largely the same, perhaps less-volcanically phrased argument that he did all the way back in 2008 about the psyche of economically struggling, largely white voters.

end quotes

There, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, is a prime example of political division in America manufactured by the powerful and privileged supporters of Barack Obama who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep us cynical because it helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege.

That is what put Donald Trump in the white house.

As to the claim that “(Y)ou have two very capable administrators in White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis having to deal with what they “see” as an ‘unhinged idiot’ (Kelly) with the understanding of ‘a fifth or sixth grader’ (Mattis),” I believe that those claims are being denied by Kelly and Mattis, so right now, they are unsubstantiated gossip.

And thank you, Chas Cornweller, for bringing forth these points in here as you have done, so the record can be fleshed out fully, so as to show how it was that Obama and the Democrats are responsible for putting Donald Trump in the white house.

It is a story the American people need to understand so we can move forward as a nation, so a grateful nation thanks you, Chas Cornweller, for getting that ball rolling in here with your article above.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ment-71156
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

ASSOCIATED PRESS

"The Latest: Obama says midterms chance at political 'sanity'"


9 SEPTEMBER 2018

ANAHEIM, Calif. — The Latest on former President Barack Obama (all times local):

12:55 p.m.

Former President Barack Obama says the midterm elections in November will give Americans the chance to — in his words — "restore some sanity in our politics" by changing control of Congress.

He's in California trying to help out a group of congressional candidates.

And Obama tells the crowd in Anaheim that "we're all in this together and that what makes America exceptional and unique is that from all around the world people ... came here because they believed in a certain set of ideals."
___

12:40 p.m.

Barack Obama has made a political appearance in California on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates he says have "decided to step up and bring out the best in our country."

The former president says "we're in a challenging moment" when enormous changes are taking place.

He says 'people feel unsettled, people feel scared," and they're worried about their children's future.

Obama says there are no problems that can't be solved if "we're working together and we're true to the traditions that are the best in America."

But he's also warning that it's "always tempting for politicians — for their own gain and for people in power — to try to see if they can divide people, scapegoat folks."

When that happens, he says, people become cynical and decide not to participate in the political process — creating a vacuum that lobbyists and special interests fill.
___

8:15 a.m.

Former President Barack Obama is in California to campaign for Democratic congressional candidates one day after issuing a stinging rebuke of his successor in the White House.

Obama is set to appear later Saturday at the Anaheim Convention Center in the heart of Orange County, a once-solid Republican stronghold that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election that Donald Trump won.

Obama will share the billing with seven Democratic candidates in competitive U.S. House districts across California.

Those races are considered crucial to the party's efforts to retake control of the House from Republican.

Four of those districts are at least partly in Orange County.

Obama issued a scorching critique of President Donald Trump on Friday in a speech at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson ‘have invented alternative history’ of Lehman collapse, professor says"


By Greg Robb

Published: Sept 13, 2018 4:01 p.m. ET

Nearly ten years ago, Lehman Brothers, declared bankruptcy after a frantic weekend of unsuccessful talks to find a buyer at the New York Fed.

Lehman’s collapse followed the takeover of Bear Stearns in early March by J.P. Morgan Chase that was assisted by a Fed loan and the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The outcome has always been controversial.


After rescuing Bear Stearns and the GSEs, no public money was provided Lehman to stay afloat.

Days later, the Fed reversed course, providing assistance to two other investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, through access to loan programs.

Goldman’s total borrowing peaked at $69 billion while Morgan Stanley’s peaked at $107 billion.

The Fed also rescued American International Group through an initial $85 billion line of credit.

This was followed by the broad $700 billion bank bailout that Congress passed, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson have all said that they wished to rescue Lehman but that their hands were tied because Lehman did not have enough collateral to allow the government to provide a financial lifeline.

Laurence Ball, in a new book “The Fed and Lehman Brothers, Setting the Record Straight on a Financial Disaster,” debunks this official narrative.


An economics professor at Johns Hopkins University, Ball says there was no discussion of Lehman’s collateral or the legality of a loan during the crucial weekend.

In addition, he said that Lehman did have enough collateral, if anyone had looked.

Other analysts, including Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, have argued that Lehman was probably deeply insolvent at the time of its bankruptcy.

MarketWatch sat down with Ball to discuss the findings of his book.

Henry Paulson said this recently:

“The thing we get the most criticism for is letting Lehman go down."

"Despite the fact that the three of us have all said, you know, we did everything we could to save Lehman."

"We didn’t believe then and don’t believe now a single authority we had that would have worked."

"Many people say well 'they were able to save Bear Stearns, they were able save AIG, why couldn’t they save Lehman?'“

"We answer it and most people still don’t believe us.”

You don’t believe them.


I don’t believe them.

They have been asked that question again and again and they have given the same answer again and again.

And when I first started researching this I didn’t know what the right answer was — there were such starkly different claims.

But having spent four years looking at the evidence — and there’s a lot of evidence, what Secretary Paulson is saying there is just simply not true.

What the three officials say is that Lehman didn’t have enough collateral so that the Fed couldn’t legally give them a loan.

Yes, that’s the sense of it.

And actually that is absolutely incorrect in two related, but distinct, senses.

First of all, in terms of their decision-making— again there’s a big record from some investigations with subpoena power about what people were discussing in that weekend — they were discussing various economic and political ramifications of letting Lehman fail or not letting Lehman fail.

They were not discussing does Lehman have enough collateral — do we have the legal authority.

So that was not the reason that they made the decision.

In addition, at this point it is possible to go back and put together the numbers, there is enough data on what Lehman’s assets were, what its liquidity needs were, and if one actually does that exercise, it is clear that Lehman did have ample collateral for the loan it needed to survive.

So, if the Fed had asked is there enough collateral, the answer would clearly have been yes.

They could have made a loan, it would have been legal, it would not have been very risky, and probably the whole financial crisis and Great Recession would have been less severe.

Paulson was trying to say to Wall Street, we’re not going to bail out Lehman, let this be a lesson for you.

In essence that’s Elizabeth Warren’s anti-bailout view.

But it didn’t last more than a day or two.


What I, in my opinion, establish with absolute certainty in the book, is that the official explanation about legal authority and collateral was simply not correct.

Again the fact that those three impressive people say it again and again, very strongly, does not make it true.

As far as what then is the real reason, there we have to be a little bit more speculative, and my conclusions there are not terribly original: I think it was political.

Of course, many people have said all along obviously it was political but everything I’ve seen is consistent with that.

It wasn’t just Elizabeth Warren, it was everybody.

It was the one completely bipartisan issue with Bernie Sanders saying this is a giveaways to the rich and conservatives saying this is socialism taking over the banks.

The two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, both issued very stern statements.

This was right after the takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama and McCain issued statements saying we can’t have any more of this nonsense.

So there was tremendous political pressure.


In addition to that, there was an underestimation of the damage the failure would do, maybe some wishful thinking.

And you’re absolutely right that there was a 180 degree turn in a day-and-a-half when they rescued AIG.

I would put a positive interpretation on that.

They made a bad mistake, one that they have not owned up to.

But at least they quickly saw what a bad mistake it was.

Henry Paulson widely was quoted as saying I can’t be “Mr. Bailout.”

But I think he realized pretty quickly that being “Mr. Caused The Worst Depression Since The 1930s” would be even worse, so we’re lucky that he and the other policy makers at least were flexible enough to shift course.

Because Lehman was the accelerant on the financial crisis?

Yes.

Federal Reserve economists several days before the Lehman bankruptcy predicted that the unemployment rate would peak at 6% because of strains on financial markets.

Lehman was the event that caused strains on financial markets to turn into... people use metaphors like tsunami, trainwreck and so on.

Earlier in 2008, in March, Bear Stearns has been rescued.

Lehman failed in September.

What happened in between?


There were the big five investment banks and Bear Stearns was the fifth biggest and they were very invested in real estate.

So there was a lot of speculation that maybe this could happen to another one of these investment banks.

And the fourth biggest, Lehman Brothers, was also heavily invested in real estate, so there was speculation perhaps Lehman Brothers could be the next one to go.


Lehman Brothers actually had a very sharp shift in its business strategy.

Up until the Bear Stearns event, they were continuing to try to expand in real estate.

They actually thought “Gee, this is great."

"Real estate prices are depressed and we will buy low and make a lot of money.”

But after Bear Stearns, they realized they had a big problem and they tried hard to raise capital, they looked for an acquirer, and Secretary Paulson was very involved trying to be a broker for that.

Now I think they talked to basically every global investment bank, every sovereign wealth fund, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, anybody with money, and no deal was done.

I think various people I think including Secretary Paulson think the problem was that Richard Fuld, the Lehman CEO, didn’t fully face reality and had an unrealistically optimistic view about what his company was worth and wasn’t going to engage in a fire sale.

Of course that changed at the very, very end, when they faced bankruptcy.

I can certainly understand why Paulson and Fed officials were very frustrated.

They did work very hard for six months to try to arrange at Lehman takeover and were not successful.

The problem with the investment banks is they had long-term investments funded by short-term paper?

The basic mechanism by which they got in trouble is well understood.

It’s really the same story for all five banks: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman and Bear.

They all had similar problems with then quite different outcomes.


But there were three interrelated problems.

Number one, they made these big bets on real estate during the housing boom and they lost a lot of money on those.

Factor number two was they had very low equity and once they started losing money on real estate it didn’t take long before their equity started getting close to zero and people started to question their solvency and their viability.


And then problem number three was exactly what you said: reliance on short-term funding — largely overnight repos — so that once people lost confidence, you had essentially the same phenomenon as a bank run.

The people who were providing them funds on a daily basis said: “We don’t want to be providing funds for somebody who might go bankrupt.”

So Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy at 1:45 a.m. on a Monday morning because they were supposed to open for business in a few hours and pay somebody a billion dollars and they just didn’t have billion dollars.

They were out of cash because their short-term financing was not rolled over.

The Fed’s job is to step in when there is a bank run.

That’s right.

According to classic central banking doctrine, going back to Walter Bagehot in the 19th century, the central bank is the lender of last resort, if there is a bank run, a panic.

And again, it could be an old-fashioned bank run with the depositors running and taking their cash out or it could be this 21st century version of repurchase agreements cut off.

The central bank’s job is to provide enough cash to keep things going.

Lehman could have been kept going long enough to work out some kind resolution that was better than just telling them you have six hours to prepare a bankruptcy petition for the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Instead of acting, the two Fed officials, Bernanke and Geithner, deferred to Paulson?

The politics are interesting.

Under the law at the time, it was the Fed’s sole responsibility to decide whether or not to make emergency loans.

There was a procedure in which, if the New York Fed had chosen to, they could have told the Board of Governors in Washington we’d like to make a loan and to get approval for that loan by a vote of the Board of Governors.

The role of the treasury secretary legally in that process was exactly the same as the role of the secretary of agriculture or the mayor of Baltimore.

Now, what actually happened was that Paulson got on an airplane and flew to the New York Fed and started telling Geithner and others what to do, and at some point said: “Lehman has to declare bankruptcy.”

As far as I can tell, just by force of personality, he took over and told people what to do.

I should say Geithner, in his most recent discussions, made the point that the Dodd-Frank Act has limited the Fed’s ability to be the lender of last resort and that’s possibly dangerous as far as handling future crises.

One of the ways in which the Fed’s authority has been limited is now the law says the secretary of treasury has to approve [a loan].

I worry because the treasury secretary is inherently a political appointee that might lead to politically motivated decisions.

I have to say it is ironic that Geithner would bring up that point, because again he chose to follow the instructions of the treasury secretary, even though at the time he wasn’t legally required to do so.

What are the lessons for today?

There are takeaways at several levels I think.

One is I think the whole financial crisis has confirmed the traditional thinking about central banking.

I think we saw how beneficial it was when the Fed did perform its role as a lender of last resort with AIG and Bear Stearns.

We saw how damaging it was when the Fed did not step up to the plate at the key moment with Lehman.

So, one narrow thing we learned is that the part of the Dodd-Frank Act that restricts the Fed’s ability to be lender of last resort was a mistake and that’s dangerous and that ought to be repealed.

Now, of course, in reality a number of parts of Dodd-Frank probably will be repealed and it’s not going to be the lender-of-last-resort part but maybe someday.

I think more broadly, from my research, I became persuaded the financial crisis didn’t have to be nearly as severe as it was.

People have told a story in which there were these big mistakes made involving the real-estate bubble and too much debt and risky behavior on Wall Street and when you sin like that there has to be punishment.

I think the punishment didn’t have to be so bad.

I think if Lehman have been rescued we might be looking back at that episode the way we look back at the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s or the dot-com bubble of the early 2000s.

Those were cases in which people made mistakes, financial institutions lost a lot of money, there was some effect on the economy, but much much milder.

The whole Great Recession was not necessary.

I can’t help saying the other thing we learned is you’ve got to really be careful listening to government officials.

Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner are correctly viewed as the class of government officials as far as very intelligent, competent, dedicated public servants, but still the story they’re telling is just not accurate.


If what Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner were saying was “Hey we did a pretty good job overall, yes at 2 a.m. on Sept. 14th we didn’t quite get it right on Lehman Brothers in this incredibly crazy confusing situation,” I would be the last person to insist on perfection in that kind of situation.

But what irks me is that they have not owned up at all to any kind of mistake and they’ve invented this alternative history of what happened on the Lehman weekend that just isn’t accurate.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/berna ... ewer_click
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address

January 21, 2009

Inaugural Address

By President Barack Hussein Obama

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given.

It must be earned.

Our capacity remains undiminished.

But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. (Applause.)

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.


https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl ... al-address
WE STARTED TO CELEBRATE BULLIES, BARACK, INSTEAD OF LOOKING OUT FOR PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, WHEN YOU PUT THE THUGGISH BULLY SONIA SOTOMAYOR ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT …

THAT'S WHEN THAT HAPPENED ...

HuffPost

"Barack Obama Tells Democrats: ‘I Need You To Come Through’ In November - 'Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes,' the former president said at a rally in Cleveland."


By Nick Visser

09/13/2018 11:12 pm ET

Former President Barack Obama urged voters to head to the polls this November in an impassioned speech in Cleveland on Thursday night, chastising his successor and Republican leadership as out of touch and indifferent to the plights of Americans.

“On November 6 we have a chance to restore some sanity to our politics,” Obama, speaking at a rally for Ohio gubernatorial candidate Richard Corday and other Democrats, said.


“We can tip the balance of power back to the American people."

"Because you are the only check on bad policy."

"You’re the only real check on abuses of power, it’s you and your vote."

"And that is why I’m here.”

“I need you to come through."

"But more importantly, the country needs you to come through.”

After a period of relative silence and political restraint following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, Obama has re-engaged on the campaign trail as a prominent messenger for the Democratic Party.

He recently endorsed more than 80 Democrats spanning the country.

He ventured to both Illinois and California last week to stump for several candidates and lambaste Trump as a demagogue who was “capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years.”

He echoed those critiques on Thursday, leveling pointed criticisms at Trump on matters including the president’s regular attacks on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and his efforts to undermine the media.

Obama also decried Republican efforts to roll back access to health care and severely restrict migration at the southern border, which resulted in a “zero tolerance” immigration policy that saw thousands of children separated from their parents, with hundreds yet to be reunited.

“I don’t know what happened to our culture."

"… I don’t know when we began to celebrate bullies instead of looking out for people who care for other people,” Obama said.

“When did that happen?”


He said people of both parties and those without a party affiliation “should be concerned with our current course, should be concerned about the basic institutions of our democracy, should want to see a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness to our government.”

As he stayed on the political sidelines through the first year-and-a-half of Trump’s presidency, Obama faced growing pressure from Democratic leaders to leverage his continuing popularity to rally the party’s base and independents.

Finally heeding the call, he’s now embarked on a course rare for ex-presidents as he works to help Democrats gain momentum and potentially flip the balance of power in one or both chambers of Congress.

He is expected to campaign regularly through the Nov. 6 elections.

Trump quickly discounted one of Obama’s speeches last week, saying: “I’m sorry, I watched it, but I fell asleep."

"I found he’s very good, very good for sleeping.”


Obama told his audience Thursday he was encouraged by the levels of intensity and involvement he sees among people energized to oppose Trump.

“I’m hopeful because out of this political darkness I am seeing a great awakening,” he said.

“The antidote to government by just a powerful few is government by the organized, by the many, by communities that get fired up and are ready to go."

"… One election won’t fix everything that needs to be fixed, but it will be a good start, we’ve got to start now.”

“The biggest threat to our democracy is indifference."

"…Let’s get out there, let’s get to work, let’s make things better,” he continued.

“Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ba ... b0977905bc
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

The Daily Wire

"Joe Biden Calls Trump Supporters 'Virulent People,' The 'Dregs Of Society'"


ByJoseph Curl @josephcurl

September 17, 2018

Joe Biden just had his "deplorables" moment.

Biden, who says he'll decided in January whether to run for president in 2020 but who is making all the moves of a presidential candidate, used a pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign annual dinner on Saturday to rip President Trump.


And in so doing, Biden had a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, when she called Trump supporters "deplorables."

Biden did his old act, starting off soft and avuncular before booming through his power points, punching the air and flailing about.

"Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made," he said.

"This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House."

"This time they have an ally."

"They're a small percentage of the American people — virulent people, some of them the dregs of society."

"And instead of using the full might of the executive branch to secure justice, dignity, safety for all, the president uses the White House as the literal — literal — bully pulpit, callously — callously — exerting his power over those who have little or none."

Biden got himself lathered up into a full froth as he waxed poetic about his and "Barack's" thoughts on Trump.

"Barack and I agreed to remain silent for a while to give this administration the chance to get up and running in the first year," Biden said.

"God forgive me," he added, making the sign of the cross as the audience applauded.

"Those who try to excuse this kind of prejudice in the name of culture, I say, 'Prejudice is prejudice and humanity is humanity — it is a crime,'" Biden said, urging those in the room to continue to oppose Trump.

"Our work is not yet done by any stretch of the imagination."

"The stakes are much too high."

And then he went even further. "This is deadly earnest, we are in a fight for America's soul," Biden said.

Biden's wife, Jill, also got in on the act before introducing her husband.

"There is nothing that makes either of us more angry than a bully."

"There's nothing that's more unfair or unjust than people using their power to try to make other people feel small, to tell them who they are or what they are capable of, to say their identity doesn't belong," she said.

"There is nothing that makes us want to pick a fight more than that," she said.

Clinton used similar language when she called "half" of Trump's supporters "deplorables" during the 2016 campaign.

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said in September 2016.


"Right?"

"Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

Now, Biden has done much the same.

And just as Biden began his speech, a few people in the crowd yelled "Run Joe!"

He replied: "Thank you."

See you in 2020, Joe.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35931/jo ... oseph-curl
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 17, 2018 at 6:46 pm

Paul Plante says :

And for a little irony in here, with respect to Progressive Democrat New York State governor and prospective Democratic Socialist presidential front-runner Young Andy Cuomo being quoted in the Albany, New York Times Union article “Cuomo claims America was ‘never that great’ by David Lombardo, @poozer87, published August 15, 2018 as saying “We’re not going to make America great again, it was never that great, we have not reached greatness yet,” in the January 21, 2009 Inaugural Address of Young Andy’s political mentor Barack Hussein Obama, Hussein was quoted as follows:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given.”

“It must be earned.”

end quotes

Sounds like Young Andy and Barack Obama are not on the same page there.

If, as Young Andy says, America was never that great, then how in January of 2009 could Hussein Obama expect us to reaffirm it, where “reaffirm” means “confirm the validity or correctness of something previously established?”

And if Obama was correct in January of 2009, that we were going to reaffirm America’s greatness, then what on earth is Young Andy Cuomo on about in 2018 telling us that America was never great?

Is he calling out Obama as a liar?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ment-72984
Post Reply