The Next White House Press Secretary, If There is a Second Obama Term

  Bookmark and Share As we hypothesize over just how extreme and out of control a second Obama term might be if given a second chance at four years in the White House, WH12 can’t help but feel that the Administration might be willing to change gears and offer a more honest approach to their political agenda by replacing their current stream of spokespersons with more blunt, straight talking representatives.  For instance, take current White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

Carney is doing his best with what he has to work with.  But his attempts to help his boss coverup the Administration’s ineptness which led to the death of four Americans at our consulate in Benghazi have been essentially digging a deeper and deeper hole for the President, the State Department, and the entire Obama-Biden reelection effort.  His most recent lies have been an attempt to deny the fact Carney himself refused to call the Benghazi attacks acts of terrorism.  He has also been trying to convince inquiring members of the White House Press Corps that he never claimed the attacks were a response to a stupid video that was made back in July and was still not being spoken about in Libya in September when the attack occurred.

It is a line of lies which has forced people to remind the White House and its Press Secretary that in today’s world there exists something called video and on it one can see and hear exactly what the President and his representatives say or even once said.

Which brings us to the next possible choice for White House Press Secretary if there is second Obama term.

Her name is Collandra  (see video of Collandra at the bottom of this post)No last names here.  It’s more hip and happening… like Madonna, Pink, and other one name wonders like Cher.  This will allow Obama 2.0 to try to get back some of that appeal it lost among younger voters since 2008 when many of those younger Obama fans thought they would at least be able to find some employment if he became President.

Collandra has no previous experience as a government spokesperson, but that matters little to an Obama 2.0 Administration.  Both their current Press Secretary and previous one, Joe Gibbs, had experience and both proved to be bumbling, stumbling failures.  But Collandra has experience with something that both Gibbs and Carney apparently are not familiar with… honesty.  With Collandra as White House Press Secretary, there will be no more Stephanie Cutter-like stupidity and false claims that distract people from the issues.  With Press Secretary Collandra there will be no more need for congressional hearings in to what the White House knew or didn’t know after after a crisis.  No, with Collandra at the helm information will flow freely and honestly without any of the politically correct, diplomatic terms that normally allow the White House to confuse people with meaningless jargon.

As Press Secretary, Collandra’s no hold barred approach to getting the White House’s message out will match the aggressive Obama 2.0 reform agenda that will seek to rid us of such constitutional inconveniences as religious liberty, and personal responsibility.  None of this will be good for the country but neither will any part of a second Obama term be good the country.  And with no opportunity to run for a third consecutive term leaving the President without a need to be held accountable in a third reelection attempt, the President may just decide to at least be honest about the direction he wants to take us in.  If so, as demonstrated in the video below, Collandra is the person for the job.


Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

The Dumbest and “Dirtiest” Liberal Attack Ad You’ve Ever Seen

  Bookmark and Share   This is one of those things that you have to see to believe but even after seeing it you will undoubtedly be finding yourself still wondering if the people who made this this commercial were serious.  The sad thing is that they are being quite serious. (See the video of this ad below this post)

The advertisement is a one minute attack ad brought to you by the dues paid to AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union that does represent many hard working men and women but exploits its members for a liberal agenda that often holds entire cities hostage to the whims of the wealthy limousine liberal labor bosses who head up the union.  In  the ad, a gentleman by the name of Richard Hayes claims to be the man who picks up Mitt Romney’s garbage.

Hayes is a San Diego garbage man who apparently has a route that includes the area in San Diego where Mitt Romney has a house.   In this 1 minute long commercial Hayes is upset over the fact that Mitt Romney has never given him a bottle of Gatorade or water and that he has never hugged him for the good job he has done picking up all of the garbage that Mitt Romney put’s out in front of his house in San Diego.  According to Mr. Hayes, many people greet him this way as he picks up their garbage.

Hayes goes on to claim that because of the tons of garbage that he picks up, his body will break down by the time he is 55 or 60 years old and then he states “but Mitt Romney doesn’t care about that”.    The ad then quickly goes to the now infamous Mother Jones clip of Mitt Romney addressing financial donors where he discusses the 47% of voters who he knows his campaign will probably not persuade to vote for him.  The edited clip they use takes Romney out of context as you here him say “and so my job is not to worry about those people”.

Of course Romney’s words were meant in a strategic political context  that made the point that his campaign had to focus on those voters who could be persuaded to vote him.  Those words were not meant in the sense that the AFSCME ad suggests which is that Romney doesn’t have any regard for people like Richard Hayes.   However, according to the script read by Hayes, Romney doesn’t care because he hasn’t made the effort to hug him.

Tracy Morgan as Richard Hayes… the Garbage Man desperately seeking a hug from Mitt Romney

The mind-numbingly dumb perspective offered in this advertisement is so shockingly disturbing that you can’t help but have to rethink whether or not it was a serious attempt at political commentary or a Saturday Night Live-like parody intended to mock political ads with an overly dramatic and emotional character who takes viewers on an intended but surprising journey from the sublime to the ridiculous.  Unfortunately this is no parody but I almost wish I could give Tracy Morgan a call and ask him to do one for me.

This ad is so outrageously stupid that one can’t help but think less of AFSCME than one may have already thought of them.  It would be one thing if this big union had a reasonable argument to present based on some Romney inspired policy initiative that they believe would hurt their members but this ad doesn’t even attempt to pretend to deal with any real issues.  Instead it actually assumes that all voters are stupid bastards who will believe that because Mitt Romney hasn’t hugged his garbage man, he is unqualified to be President.

The ad is so silly that it is truly offensive.  It is so utterly ludicrous that members of AFSCME should be embarrassed beyond belief.  They should be mortified to know that their leadership is made up of a bunch of people who are so unintelligent and dim-witted that it is quite clear to the rest of us that their shoes sizes apparently reach a higher number than their IQ’s.   Not exactly the type of people who I would want to be in charge of any negotiations involving my line of work.

To make matters worse, the spastic brains behind this ad obviously failed to even attempt to do any research before they consulted a dictionary to come up with the words they try to use in it.  As was noted in Mitt Romney’s book “No Apology,”  Romney writes about how during his gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts, he took on the jobs of various constituents and one of those jobs was collecting trash.   In his book, Romney writes;

“One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible.”

He then writes

“Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect.”

The bottom-line here is that anyone who is persuaded to vote against Mitt Romney by this commercial, should seek serious psychiatric help.  As for the people who made and approved this ad, it’s too late.  Their minds are obviously so rotted, that they are beyond help.  All the money behind Obamacare would not able to save the minds of those fools.

Bookmark and Share

Illegals Debacle Shows The President Has No Clothes

Too true to be funny anymore?

The famous poem is inviting:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is this the spirit behind the president’s announcement of an immediate end to the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the US as children? Obama thinks so, saying this is “the right thing to do,” just like everything else he decides.

The true spirit behind this action is the hubris of a President with no clothes. This announcement and the anger it has sparked gives an anatomy of how the president does things, to the point of obscuring the issues involved. Let’s look at the anatomy which is exposed:

 

First, Obama speaks objective truth which he then feels pragmatically he has to contradict.

It was only a year ago at a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admitted it is beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws he’d be breaking by doing that, and would be a breach of separation of powers. If he believed this then, then today he must believe he is violating the separation of powers. You can see the clip here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/?utm_source=co2hog

Did the law change since? The jurisprudence? Of course, stupid me, last year was not election year. This year, Obama is naturally addressing a key Latino concern….in an election year.

 

Second, he ignores due process in an increasingly monarchical sense of self

As Charles Krauthammer explains: “He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation… He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/#ixzz1xwzPGJip

The plan goes into effect immediately, affecting some 800,000 people, without discussion. He hath spoken, it is done.

Justification? Speaking at the White House, Obama said the initiative was “the right thing to do,” adding that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people” from the US. Is it me, cynicism, or are we really to believe there are 800,000 talented people out there, surely some of them are duds?

 

Third, a Machiavellian Prince who seeks to control and coerce rather than convince

Maybe the real story is the sense of visible shock when the President was interrupted by a Daily Caller reporter during his announcement. How dare anyone interrupt, that’s, well that’s like someone interrupting a monarch, just not done! The reporter ought to be expelled from the country!

The reporter, Neil Munro, explained Munro says open press events at the White House are “well designed by the president and his staff…He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,” he said. “Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work — not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.”

Munro said “Timing these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly — very nice delivery. It’s hard to know when he’s about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.”  In the future, Munro hopes the White House will “arrange events so the reporters can ask the president or his senior staff about the important policy changes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/video-neil-munro-explains-his-exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/#ixzz1xx05KPCS

 

Finally, he sets himself up as a savior, but watch out for those “sell by “ dates folks!

In order to be eligible under the new initiative, illegal immigrants must:

  • have arrived in the US when they were under the age of 16
  • have lived continuously in the US for at least five years
  • be in school, or have graduated from high school or be honourably discharged veterans of the US military
  • have no criminal record
  • be under 30 years old.

If successful, applicants would receive a work permit for two years that can (note my italics) be renewed an unlimited number of times. In other words, they’re safe until after the election and the end of Obama’s long-running campaign for office and re-election.

 

In running for this office, Republican opponent Mitt Romney needs to highlight this shameful anatomy and he himself must be: consistent, truthful and make long-term commitments. His reaction to this latest move from the White House was a good one: “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and it should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country….I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution.”

More of this please, Governor!

5 Reasons to Vote for President Obama

Image

Now, I didn’t say they are good reasons, did I? In case you’re wondering, I have been told I can be sarcastic from time to time.

Just think how refreshing a second term will be. President Obama can stop campaigning for re-election, so maybe he will focus on change without the pesky issue of being a one-term president. Maybe he will be able to pay the mortgage and fill the gas tank of the people who voted for change, and found they didn’t even get loose change.

You know those cash tills where they say “take a penny, leave a penny”? The Obama administration is more a “take everything, leave a debt” kind of cash till. But not to worry, there are five reasons why you might want to consider voting for President Obama to stay in the White House for a second term, and here they are:

1. You think America needs to change from a narrow-minded belief in exceptionalism to breaking open a six pack with your good ol’ buddies from Europe and the Middle East to toast a new era of Enlightenment.

2. You think Capitalism is inherently bad and needs government to grow in the public interest, while wealth needs to be redistributed and folks need to be told what they can buy and cannot buy; for instance, do not buy large volumes of soda.

3. You believe progressive causes should determine the future direction of America, because the Constitution does not suit the postmodern paradigm and ideally ought to be scrapped altogether.

4. You want the safety net to be for anyone who feels hard done by, so poverty is defined not by need but by entitlement to other people’s money.

5. You have ignored the evidence of the past three years and you want to see how badly everything can go in the two years Obama will get to do more of what he wants, because he won’t need to be campaigning from day one.

If Obama wins four more years in November, he will spend two years advancing as many of his ideas as possible in the hope of building his legacy, and then for two years will become the lamest of lame duck presidents.

So, go ahead, make your vote count in November!

(I did say I can be sarcastic….)

Romney needs to call Obama’s Bluffet….

 

We know that the Bluffet, sorry Buffet, rule is a motif for President’s class warfare, and more warning shots will be fired when Congress returns today from a two-week recess to a test vote on the rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. The Bluffett tax targets wealthier Americans’ investments rather than salaries.

Today is the day when this issue of class warfare kicks off for November in earnest, now that we know it will be Romney for the GOP and Congress gets to have a say on the matter.

President Obama, who pays less tax than HIS secretary (he filed tax returns showing he paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of about $800,000 in 2011) says the government needs the revenue from the Bluffett rule, estimated at $47 billion over 10 years, to cover “a broad range of goals.” He also says “This is not just about fairness.” Well, he got that right, it is very unfair, but not in the simplistic moralistic way he is peddling.

He says “This is also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fact is, do we really need government to do the investing, and where does the investment go? Into government black holes and deep pockets, rather than into businesses which create wealth. The Bluffet tax would not create wealth, it would merely enhance dependency. We would see a better rate of return on the $47 billion in business investment by the wealthy than we would from government. That is an awful lot of liquidity to take out of the markets, and I don’t see too many secretaries taking up the slack.

Of course, keeper of the Treasury keys Tim Geithner was out pushing the rule on Sunday, “Just because Republicans oppose this does not mean it’s not the right thing to do and not the right thing to push for,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Double negatives aside, we can say that just because Democrats think it is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it even begins to make sense.

If we look at the paying side of this, we see the rich targeted for this end up paying more. Simple. But for what are they paying? Increased revenue means increased expenditure, and so the things for government to spend on expands to meet the expanded revenue. More programs, more dependency and less reward for effort. What does the payer get in return? They get little benefit, and the wealthier they are the less they need what they are paying for.

Which means the sole purpose of the Bluffet rule is twofold, increased state powers and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives who attack Romney or the rich for their wealth are playing with the same deck as Obama.

Obama says, “If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do… Most Americans support this idea. We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.” Of course, Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about his investments, because after leaving office, which cannot come soon enough, he will make a ton of cash for the remainder of his days. He doesn’t have too much to worry about…The rest of us do.

The Republicans’ fading colours – The Spectator Magazine

Link to the original article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7648068/web-exclusive-the-republicans-fading-colours.thtml

 

Web exclusive: The Republicans’ fading colours

11 February 2012

CPAC Review essay by White House 2012 writer David Cowan published on The Spectator magazine website

 

Growing up in the 1960s, my primary school in Cambridge had an outdoor roofless boy’s toilets, and we happily enjoyed urinating up the wall. It was a sign we were getting further up the school when one day we were able to urinate over the wall itself — much to the annoyance of people on the other side. This memory came to mind this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC over the weekend, the annual gathering of some ten thousand political activists. This year CPAC was a pissing contest to see who was the most conservative.

The three Republican frontrunners, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich, in that order, sought to reach the base and convince activists about their conservative qualities. The themes they all offered were: what’s wrong with the Obama administration; a shopping list of what conservative policies would work better; an appeal to American exceptionalism; and a return to the founding principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The three candidates are looking for the right to fight an Obama administration seen as somewhat Carteresque, from failed election promises through to the ideological infighting. Obama, though personally liked (Ann Coulter joked he would make a nice neighbour, unless you’re Chinese, then he’d keep borrowing stuff), is seen as ineffective and evasive.

To reenergise America, the candidates laid claim to the mantle of Ronald Reagan, frequently invoking his name and sunny disposition. Yet herein lies the rub. Reagan defeated Carter with ideas for the economy and foreign policy, successfully combining a conservative vision and charm to appeal to swing voters. At CPAC 1974, Reagan gave his famous ‘bold colours, not pale pastels’ speech, asserting conservative principles. This weekend showed that some of the colours have long since faded.

Things were certainly off-colour last time I was here, back in 2009, as defeated activists sought to pick themselves up after Obama’s coronation. The biggest cheers then were for Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, as they offered succour. Newt entered to his incongruous theme tune ‘Eye of the Tiger’, but instead of entering stage right he walked in through the crowd, parting them Moses-like, shaking hands and hugging supporters.

The danger three years on is, of course, an election that will see CPAC 2013 take place after a second Obama inauguration. Expect then a sinking sense of what might have been. For many American conservatives a Republican failure this year will exacerbate what they fear most: n irreversible dependency culture and Europeanisation. Daniel Hannan flew into DC to warn on just this point, expressing his amazement to rapt delegates that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror, overtaking them.

Back in 2009 something else happened at CPAC. Sarah Palin was slated to speak, but failed to appear either in person or via a hastily announced satellite link. This was the signal that Sarah was taking the celebrity high road, rather than the political low road. This year, however, she did appear as closing speaker to offer the benediction — but not the one most people expected. She did not endorse Gingrich, as he himself alluded to in his own speech by quoting her husband Todd. She called for unity, but convoluted as ever, Palin said ‘whoever our nominee is we must work together to get him over the finishing line, and then next year we will have a true conservative in the Oval office’ — only to go on Fox news on Sunday afternoon to say she is still to be convinced Romney that is indeed a conservative.

Despite this, and despite the Santorum surge, Romney will see this conference as mission accomplished — reinforced by the CPAC Straw Poll narrowly backing his candidature. Out of the three candidates it looks seemed that Romney pissed the highest this weekend. And, while still divided, all the delegates would agree about who should be standing on the other side of the wall, on the receiving end.

CPAC and Sarah Palin mark a turn to unity

 

A vintage fiery performance: Palin told delegates we'll keep our guns, God and Constitution, and Obama can keep the change.

The most remarkable event of today’s CPAC was Sarah Palin endorsing unity. Instead of showing her support for any one candidate, she called for unity, saying that whoever the nominee is the GOP must defeat Obama. Whoever the nominee is conservatives must work together, she told an ecstatic audience, and the nation will have a true conservative in the White House.

The unity message, great!

It followed the announcement that Mitt Romney had narrowly won the CPAC Straw Poll, following his mission to the conference to prove his conservative credentials. It seems it may be mission accomplished. Certainly Romney will be feeling a lot better about his appeal to the conservative base after today.

The other remarkable performance came from the ever-popular Daniel Hannan, British Member for the European Parliament. Warning America not to go down the European road, he was amazed that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror and overtaking them!

After his talk, I had a good conversation with him, as we walked through the hotel, including a detour through the kitchens! I asked him if he endorsed any candidates? He, just a little coyly, suggested it was difficult to choose, but stressed it was important for the party to unite behind a candidate and get Obama, who earlier in the day John Bolton called the “first post-American President”, out of the White House.

Daniel Hannan warns America not to follow Europe down a path and off a cliff

Hannan also urged me to write that the GOP must stop having so many debates, as it is only serving to divide the party. He also said Republicans need to focus on the budget, not all the side issues that divide conservatives. With that he headed for the airport, though many didn’t want him to leave and asked if he could be made an honorary American instead.

This has been an important few days for conservatives, and may finally signal the road to unity. Romney should start to pull firmly into the lead, and though Santorum and Gingrich will no doubt continue, they will see their numbers dwindle.

The New York Times carried a report ahead of Sarah Palin’s speech that she didn’t think a brokered RNC would be a problem. This is just a liberal wet dream. The reality is, Sarah Palin has signalled this important moment, and shown that there is less stomach for infighting.

I picked up my media credentials on Thursday at CPAC fearful of a divided party that would succeed only in rolling out the red carpet for President Obama. After three days, I happily left making my way through the handful of sorry-looking OWS protesters feeling that I can see November from here.

%d bloggers like this: