OBAMA WAS PUT IN OFFICE BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT PUT GEORGE BUSH IN OFFICE, THE BILDERBURGERS. THAT IS WHY HE IS FOLLING BUSHES POLICIES AND HAS BROKEN ALMOST EVERY CAMPAIGN PROMISE.
BOYCOTT ALL LIBERAL MEDIA ADVERTISERS UNTIL THEY STOP DISTORTING THE EWS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. WE CAN DO THIS! PASS THIS ON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS OT WATCH THE BANKER CONTROLED NES MEDIA RE-ELECT BARAK OBAMA.
But in a moment that caught the attention of people in both parties, he appeared agitated in criticizing Mr. Obama for a Senate vote he cast, referring to his opponent only as “that one.”
Mr. McCain sought to break through by highlighting a proposal under which the Treasury Department would buy up mortgages that had gone bad, and in effect refinance them at prices homeowners could afford
There were no obvious dramatic breakthrough moments by Mr. McCain; indeed, although the two men pummeled back and forth, it was Mr. Obama who more consistently drew sharp contrasts between the voting records and campaign promises of the two.
He cast his arm at Mr. Obama. “That one,” he said. “You know who voted against it? Me.”
“Senator McCain and I actually agree on something,” Mr. Obama said. “He said a while back that the big problem with energy is that for the last 30 years politicians in Washington haven’t done anything. What McCain doesn’t mention is he’s been there 26 of them and during that time he voted 23 times against alternative fuels.”
On May 20, the Senate passed its bill to reregulate Wall Street by a vote of 59-39, complete with a (watery) version of the Volcker Rule. The story of the legislation's passage can be told in a number of ways: a tale of conflict or compromise, triumph or capitulation. But on any reading, that story is only the climactic chapter in a larger narrative: how the masters of the money game fell out of love with-and into a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury toward-Obama.
The speed and severity of the swing from enchantment to enmity would be difficult to overstate. When Obama was sworn into office, Democrats on Wall Street rejoiced at the ascension of a president in whom they saw many qualities to admire: brains, composure, bi-partisan instincts, an aversion to class-based combat. And many Wall Street Republicans-after witnessing the horror show that constituted John McCain's response to the financial crisis-quietly admitted relief that the other guy had prevailed.
The moral philosopher Cornel West, if Barack Obama's ascent to power was a morality play, would be the voice of conscience. Rahm Emanuel, a cynical product of the Chicago political machine, would be Satan. Emanuel in the first scene of the play would dangle power, privilege, fame and money before Obama. West would warn Obama that the quality of a life is defined by its moral commitment, that his legacy will be determined by his willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.
When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point.
What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this. Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war? Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?
WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE LOST ALL OF YOUR LIBERTY AND YOU CAN'T VOTE HIM OUT?
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS LOST IN THE WONDER OF THEIR MESSAIH WILL NEVER NOTICE!
MITT AND ANN ROMNEY STARTED OUT WITH THEIR FIRST TWO BOYS IN A TWO ROOM APARTMENT AND MITT PAID FOR HIS OWN SCHOOL. UNLIKE BARAK OBAMA WHO HAS HAD ALOT GIVIN TO HIM.
When there is a problem with an employee it is the fault of that employee. When there is a problem with all employees it is the fault of management. It comes from a lack of leadership. This is true in all situations.
Obama doesn't have the leadership skills to be president and it shows in his employees.