Ronald Reagan’s famous question that sank Jimmy Carter in 1980 — “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” — could be reprised to measure the performance of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The latest figures from the Census Bureau and Federal Reserve suggest the answer would be an emphatic “no.”
In 2008, Mr. Obama’s message of hope and change resonated with the promise of “policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy from the bottom up so that everyone has a chance to succeed.” Audiences cheered, but now with the knowledge from experience, the question becomes, has that investment paid off?
A new Federal Reserve study finds the median net worth of families last year fell to its lowest level since 1992, after adjusting for inflation. For most families, this means that the work of two decades of economic struggle has vanished. The dollar figure on the paycheck is higher, but dollars don’t buy nearly as much as they did.
By this measure, the presiding generation is less well-off than the one that preceded it. This is not a surprise to parents who find their dreams of peace in an “empty nest” dashed when their children return from college, unable to find jobs.
Stimulus and “investment” were supposed to reinvigorate the economy. Government spending would create jobs and rescue Americans from the grim clutch of poverty. Census Bureau statistics released Tuesday show 45.3 million Americans living below the poverty level as measured by the government. That’s almost 10 million more living in poverty than in 1992.
While the population is larger, the poverty rate is identical — 14.5 percent. It’s as likely that someone is poor today as in 1992, or in 1962. Mr. Obama’s economic policies have achieved nothing, but worse, the entire 50-year Democratic “war on poverty” has made no discernible impact on poverty.
Washington Times: The Obama disease takes toll on economy
At yesterday’s tan suit presser, President Obama said a whole lot of nothing. After informing our ISIS enemies that he has no idea what he’s going to do about them – if anything – he turned his attention to Russia. It’s should be obvious to every clear-thinking man, woman, and child that, if over a thousand troops, tanks, and paratroopers drop into a foreign nation, it’s being invaded. Unfortunately, it seems that it’s not obvious to Barack Obama. …Because the word “invasion” has magically disappeared from his vocabulary.
According to the President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an invasion. It’s either “an aggression,” an “internvention,” or some kind of “ongoing incursion.”
So why can’t Barack Obama bring himself to utter the “I-word?” Most media outlets are looking for a geo-political reason, but you don’t need to work that hard. If there’s one thing we know about Barack Obama, it’s that – for him – everything is about Barack Obama. The nation, the world, and the very fabric of the known universe revolve around his visage.
So I have a theory about why he’s so reticent to call this an invasion: Sarah Palin.
Back in 2008, Sarah Palin warned the world that, if the United States elected a weak-minded equivocator like Senator Barack Obama as its next President, it would embolden Vladimir Putin and spark an invasion of Ukraine.
As she said at the time:
“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of moral indecision and equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
She was, as you’ll certainly recall, lampooned endlessly for the assertion. This is where the infamous “I can see Russia from my house” bit on SNL came from. Now, it turns out that her prognostication was 100%, dead-on, correct.
Not only did she nail the countries involved, but she also stuck the landing by predicting the reason. Putin doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, and he has no reason to concern himself with Obama, because Obama has projected nothing but abject weakness.
Sarah Palin was “right” with a specificity rarely seen in politics and the left spent six years mocking her mercilessly for it.
To admit that the “stupidest woman on the face of the Earth” was correct all along would not only be an embarrassment, it would be anathema to every single thing for which the modern Democrat party stands: namely ego, arrogance, and agenda. For them, Palin is public enemy number one. She is the embodiment of everything they despise and a six-year focal point for their unhinged rage.
She can NEVER be allowed to be proven right. She said Putin would invade Ukraine, so there is no invasion of Ukraine.
Is it petty? Yes. Is it a childish? Sure. Is it everything we’ve come to expect from the petty man currently occupying the Oval Office?
Canada Free Press: Sarah Palin predicted a weak Obama would enable the ‘invasion’ of Ukraine
Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor who helped break up AT&T, today announced that he and other plaintiffs have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in D.C. (Case no. 14-1484) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “RICO” for criminal acts by President Barack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the U.N. Secretary General for laundering U.S. dollars to the terrorist organization HAMAS. This money has been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel.
As set forth in the complaint, which can be viewed at http://www.freedomwatchusa.org, the defendants have conspired to send money, that is hundreds of millions of U.S. Dollars to HAMAS, under the false pretext that this financial support will be used for humanitarian purposes. However, as recently reported by Voice of America and the New York Times, the recent killing of the chief HAMAS financial officer by the IDF confirmed that these U.S. dollars, only some of which was found in his bombed out car, has predictably fallen into the hands of HAMAS’s terrorist wing which controls and was elected by Gazans to govern over them.
Larry Klayman, the lead plaintiff had this to say upon filing suit: “The nation and the world have increasingly come to see that Obama views himself primarily as a Muslim and acts accordingly in favoring Islamic interests over Judeo-Christian ones, and the complaint lays out Obama’s history in documented detail. This includes his actions calculated to harm the nation of Israel. His facilitating and ordering financial and other material aid to HAMAS, along with his equally anti-Israel Secretaries of State Kerry and Clinton, and the U.N. Secretary General, is just the latest deadly chapter in what amounts to criminal activity which has logically resulted in harm and death to Jews and Christians and threatens the continued existence of Israel. That is why he and the other defendants were sued under RICO and other relevant laws.”
For more information, contact Freedom Watch at (424) 274-2579 or firstname.lastname@example.org
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
A government watchdog found the Pentagon violated U.S. law when it swapped five Guantanamo detainees for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl without giving Congress proper notification
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 (UPI) — The Department of Defense violated U.S. law in swapping five Guantanamo detainees for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a review by the Government Accountability Office found.
Back in June, Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee sent a letter questioning the move and asking the GAO to identify possible violations of the federal Antideficiency Act.
The review, released by the GAO Thursday, found the DOD violated the requirement to notify Congress of the transfer at least 30 days in advance when it conducted the transfer of the five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar.
“In addition to the national security implications associated with President Obama‘s release of these Taliban fighters, the legal and constitutional issues need to be addressed,” said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the vice chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in June. “We simply can’t have the President ignoring duly enacted laws that he himself has signed. A legal opinion from the GAO could help determine what recourse is available to the Congress regarding how the laws of the land are interpreted and enforced.”
The White House has finally realized that ISIS is not the “jay-vee” version of Al Qaeda. They must be stopped in Iraq before we are forced to stop their expansion elsewhere.
Check out some video commentary on the situation with ISIS. Time for the United States Military to do what it’s trained to do. Time for the red, white and blue military might to show the world our resolve. We must stop them over there before we have to stop them anywhere else!
– Sarah Palin
Second-quarter advertising revenue at The New York Times Co. fell 4.1% from the quarter a year earlier, a decline driven by sagging print-ad sales, the company said Tuesday.
The drop is a return to the long-term pattern for the Times, where an ad-sales increase in the first quarter broke a three-year streak of ad-sales declines. The company said then that it expected to see ad sales go back to declines in the second quarter.
Overall second-quarter revenue was off 0.6% to $388.7 million, compared with $391.0 million in the second quarter of 2013.
Operating profit for the quarter slipped 21% to $55.7 million from $70.7 a year earlier, with costs up 5.2% partly because of increased marketing outlays.
Despite the declines in revenue and profit, the Times reported a 3.4% boost in digital advertising revenue to $41.5 million in the second quarter. Digital sales reached $79.3 million in the first six months of the year, up from $77.1 million during the same period last year.