Americans who rely on the network broadcasts or the nation’s top newspapers for their news may have just learned about the weekend resignation of President Obama’s "green jobs czar" or the firestorm of controversy that was set off weeks ago by the revelation of his past provocative statements.
Most of the major news outlets, like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS ignored the swelling heat surrounding former White House environmental adviser Van Jones and the videos surfacing of his controversial statements.
Well, here is one that will annoy Obama. Most people want to see proof of citizenship before you get a government handout. 83% of us.
Republicans tried to add a rider to the health care bill to require this and it was shot down by the Dems.
These people DO NOT represent us.
On health care reform, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can receive government subsidies.
According to Rasmussen, 77% of the US see Obama as Liberal and this nut-tard thinks he is “centrist”? Yeah, and Stalin was a Democrat.
Catching up with a great catch in last week’s Weekly Standard “Scrapbook” section, the September 7 issue highlighted an example of how it takes a worldview that sees liberals like Barack Obama as “consensus”-oriented/“explicitly nonideological” centrists — and Republicans as “ideologically committed” conservatives — to work at the New York Times. Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the newspaper’s Book Review and Week in Review sections, in his new book, The Death of Conservatism, proposes on page 23:
The primary dynamic of American politics, normally described as a continual friction between the two major parties, is equally in our time a competition between the liberal idea of consensus and the conservative idea of orthodoxy. We see it in the Democratic Party’s recent history of choosing centrist, explicitly nonideological presidential candidates (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama), as contrasted with the Republicans’ preference for ideologically committed ones (Goldwater, Reagan, George W. Bush).
Gateway Pundit: Krauhammer Drops Jeremiah Wright Bomb Says Van Jones’ Lunacy "Is a Reflection of the Boss" (Video)
I usually end up agreeing with Krauhammer on 99% of what he says, but no matter what he comes up with, its always well thought out, well articulated, and intelligent.
He is dead on with this one.
Charles Krauhammer on communist-Truther Green Czar Van Jones:
It’s a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history before he became a candidate of being around and friends with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The liberals scolded us last year on how irrelevant all that is and how it’s a smear campaign against Obama. But, if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism. Then a Van Jones will show up. You’ll watch him years and years and you’ll think this guy is perfectly mainstream.
This guy is completely put of control.
What exactly does a union leader know about creating manufacturing jobs?
Honestly, just how incompetent is Barack Obama?
The radical in the White House just placed a high-level SEIU negotiator in charge of creating manufacturing jobs…
When was the last time you heard of a union building and creating a manufacturing plant?
Former SEIU principal Ron Bloom becomes the Obama "Manufacturing Czar."
Jake Tapper reported this on Sunday:
In Cincinnati tomorrow, President Obama will announce that he’s appointing Ron Bloom his Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, White House sources tell ABC News.
Bloom is currently Senior Advisor to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner as a member of the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry, named to that position in February. He will remain in that position even while he takes on his new task.
So who is Ron Bloom?
Jammie Wearing Fool has this:
The name Ron Bloom is one that we need to start paying attention to. He has a long history of being the negotiating face of unions in a suit. He is a Harvard Business School graduate who has worked for the unions beginning with SEIU for decades. The most recent union he represented was the United Steel Workers (USW) before becoming a part of the automotive team that Obama put together.
Let me tell you three stories. All are personal experiences, all were witnessed by me.
1. At a government cleanup site I worked at (in IT), a person called the help desk because someone’s keyboard died after they spilled coffee on it. No big deal. We had piled of extra keyboards in our storage area. So, one of the help desk techs ran over, grabbed one, carried it to the person who had the problem, replaced it, and chucked the old one. She then closed the support ticket and went on with her day.
Several days latter we were all called in for a talking to. A union person saw someone carrying a brand new keyboard and filed a grievance. The union people are the only ones permitted to move equipment on the site. So, the grievance listed what personnel and time would be required for this job:
- Send in an official request to move new equipment to include description of the keyboard, size of the box, and weight
- Wait until the required people (yes, plural) could be assigned to the task
- Pay these people (a laborer and a safety officer/supervisor) 4 hours each for the time it would take to move the item.
So moving a $15 dollar item cost about $1,000 because a union was involved, never mind the lost time it would have taken.
- 2. At the same place, one of the buildings had a broken piece of vinyl siding. A simple job for any homeowner, taking about 20 minutes. Measure, cut, replace. Not with a union. There were 5 people assigned to the task and it took 8 hours to perform. Not because the task took that long, but because that’s what the union said it would take. Two of the five people never lifted a finger. How do I know all this? I asked them. They were quite proud of how little work they had to do.
- 3. This one is quick. Mowing the lawn. 2 people per mower. One to mow, the other was a safety officer/supervisor.
- You want to know why union companies do so poorly, there you are. They are a drain on any company trying to get work done. Unions were needed, but they are no longer a help to anyone. They just hurt companies and the country.
Big Labor, big troubles
By Michelle Malkin • September 7, 2009 09:30 AM
Here is your Labor Day graph of the day, via Gallup:
And the bottom line:
This year’s Gallup update on views toward unions comes in the midst of an economic recession, and in the aftermath of major economic interventions by the U.S. government on behalf of two of the Big Three domestic auto companies.
The update also comes as the Employee Free Choice Act — a proposal to significantly change collective bargaining laws — is still under consideration by Congress. If passed as originally proposed, the bill would most likely make it easier for unions to organize. In fact, proponents of EFCA (who feel the current system is stacked against unions) say that’s the intent. However, those changes may be going against the tide of public opinion, which currently is at a historically low ebb for unions.
Image via Wikipedia
According to the NY Times(which is always an adventure), Team Obama has one of the most extensive and invasive vetting processes ever. This is very interesting.
If its true (and I assume it is because Gateway Pundit has a copy of the questionnaire), then there are two possible scenarios:
- A highly admired friend of Obama lied on every question in the thing to be able to have a position in the Obama regime (unlikely in my opinion)
- Obama knew everything about this guy and it was all fine with him. Truther, cop-killer supporter, communist, everything.
- Please visit the link at the bottom to Gateway Pundit. They have the actual questionnaire and sample questions.
UPDATE: Hot Air reports that the White House said they never asked him to fill out the questionnaire.
Last November after the national election Team Obama announced to the American public that they would initiate the most extensive and invasive application process ever. Their vetting process would "go beyond what might have been expected."
The Obama White House was committed to "change."
The New York Times reported:
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps…
…Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.
“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.
Gotta love the “objective’ journalism…
On Friday, Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the nation’s unemployment rate rose to a seasonally adjusted 9.7% in August, and that the economy lost another 216,000 seasonally adjusted jobs.
In various ways, the press tried to put a happy face on the news and otherwise tried to minimize its impact. It also continued, as it has for years, to ignore what really happened on the ground (i.e., the not seasonally adjusted numbers) during the month; in August, a look at that info punctures any illusion that the employment situation is improving. It also ignored prior-month downward revisions to both June and July totaling 49,000 seasonally adjusted jobs
It amazes me how much Obama hates the US and our allies. Power Line asks if Obama has a moral compass. Yes, and it always points away from the US.
Barry Rubin describes the latest example of the Obama administration’s hard-wired inability to take the side of an ally if it means offending a bloodthirsty enemy. In this instance the parties are Iraq, for whose stability we have sacrificed hundreds of lives, and Syria, which has harbored and supported the terrorists who have taken many of those lives.
The current disputes stems from a visit to Syria by President Maliki in mid-August. Malkik reportedly offered his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad economic concessions in exchange for expelling 271 Iraqi exiles involved in organizing terrorist attacks against their country. Assad refused and Maliki returned to Iraq.
The next day, Baghdad was hit by large-scale bombings that targeted the Foreign and Finance Ministries. More than 100 Iraqis were killed. The Iraqi government blamed Syria. The two countries recalled their ambassadors, and the Iraqis are calling for an international tribunal to investigate.