Making BFFs – Obama Curries Favor with Big Business and 1%ers

Editor’s Note – For almost six years as President, along with his campaign rhetoric prior, and his short stint in the Senate, Obama has railed against big business, fat cats, bankers, Wall Street, and beyond. He always tried to appeal to the masses as being separate from the 1%, and for the 99%.

The problem is, he IS part of the 1% and caters to their needs in order to line Democrat Party coffers as well his two campaigns for the Oval Office. Hypocrisy is a word to describe others, while he sees himself as doing what has to be done to achieve his goals. He is the king of the ‘say or do anything crowd’ to get your way and becoming BFFs with big business.

Picking winners and losers, dividing peoples and industries, catering to the wealthy as he vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, and golfing with the elites of the world are his stock in trade. Why do his followers and the MSM not see him as the fake and fraud he really is?

Why the White House Is Now Trying to Be Besties with Big Business

By Gerren McHam – Daily Signal

Ready for a backroom deal brokered by the White House?

White House officials met Monday with business leaders and interest groups to talk about executive actions President Obama should consider on immigration, per press reports. Instead of working to secure the southern border, the White House appears to be looking to obtain allies for its administrative amnesty approach that is unjust, costly, and will increase illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, government and big business collusion is nothing new. We’ve seen them team up to support the Export-Import Bank and back a nearly 1,000 page comprehensive immigration bill that purported to have something for everyone.United States Export-Import Bank

So what opportunities are up for grabs on immigration? The president will likely insist on an administrative amnesty for perhaps as many as five million illegal immigrants.

According to Politico, business leaders and interest groups are advocating for measures that include “allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused, and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications.”

The implication is that if the White House gives them some of these goodies, they will support Obama’s inappropriate administrative amnesty.

Lost in the conversation are those who lose out or who aren’t shown the same favoritism as the involved players, such as the American taxpayer who has to foot the bill for illegal immigration. Legal immigrants and those waiting patiently in line to immigrate from abroad legally also will lose

Other business interests are being left out, too. For example, as Politico mentions, representatives of the construction industry would like their slice of the pie by incorporating a low-skilled worker provision into any executive action agreement.

This semi-comprehensive approach is frustrating the left. “All bets are off” for broader immigration reform if Obama continues down this road, said Tamar Jacoby of Immigration Works USA, a pro-immigration reform group,adding that “Obama will poison the well” if he continues excluding their members—many of which are builders and contractors—from private discussions and neglecting to include their own carve outs in Obama’s final orders.

With similar negative responses from other groups, it’s easy to see why the administration continues to communicate that everything is still up for consideration

So why is Obama pursuing this partnership with Big Business?

“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”
“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”

For the administration, such a partnership would help blunt criticism. Instead of faithfully enforcing our immigration laws, the administration has gone out of its way to undermine them, making promises to supporters of amnesty that Obama will do everything within his power to address immigration through executive action.

Unfortunately for them, a recent CNN poll indicates that 45 percent of Americans believe Obama has gone far enough with executive action, leaving one to believe that handling the immigration issue unilaterally may prove unpopular.

As the New York Times points out, the administration is “essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituents.” This “go-it-alone” approach is a far cry from an administration that “claims to be the most transparent in United States history.”

With the November elections quickly approaching, the Obama administration is likely trying to both appease its supporters and also be able to show. a collective front from business. So instead of focusing to secure the border and properly address the crisis of young accompanied minors, the White House appears to be pursuing business as usual in Washington—something we have unfortunately grown to expect.

"Let them eat cake" – The 1% Life of the Obamas

Editor’s Note – The 1% lifestyle – such nasty press and rhetoric about the rich, but where is the media about the 1% lifestyle of the Obamas?

When anyone points out how much the Obamas’ vacations, and what it costs, the immediate knee jerk reaction is to cite the George W. Bush years as if there is some moral equivalence, a common tactic. But the critique on the Obamas largesse goes much deeper, and it’s not just the cost, it’s in the optics, a term we hear so much about in political parlance, often ignoring any Obama ‘optics’.

In the following article, its refreshing to see someone point out the vast differences. The left whitewashes all that Obama does but they certainly tarred the Bush family at the drop of a vowel, or a mangled word, to him chopping wood at his Texas ranch – a double standard that even makes the word hypocrisy seem far too soft a description.

Let them eat cake” seems to be the unspoken mantra, yet that does not matter unless it was about Mitt and Ann Romney. Perception is the rule, and it certainly depends on who you ask, especially when convincing “low information” voters.

The Obamas live the 1 percent life

By Joseph Curl – Washington Times oped

Being president of the U.S., the most powerful man in the world, is often most about perception. The man (or, one day, woman) in the job takes actions large and small every day, but it is the perception of the man that seeps into the everyday lives of working Americans.

That’s why presidential candidates always hit Philadelphia for a cheesesteak during campaigns (Democrats to Pat’s, Republicans to Geno’s). Sure, they’re running billion-dollar operations trying to win the White House, but one picture of them wolfing down a Cheez Whiz-covered glob of meat on a Philly street hits home with millions of voters: “Hey, that guy’s just like me! He loves him a Pat’s [or Geno’s] cheesesteak, too!” (Unless you’re John F. Kerry and order Swiss cheese — then everyone hates you.)

Sometimes, that perception cuts to the core. Like when President George W. Bush stopped playing golf in 2003, at the height of the Iraq War.

“I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” he said years later. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.”

That’s also why Mr. Bush did two other things, without fanfare or praise. First, he never headed home to his Texas ranch until after Christmas, instead going to Camp David for a few days. That way, the hundreds of people revolving around him at all times — White House staff, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers, all the others — could spend the holiday with their families in and around Washington, D.C. No one ever reported that — until this column.

Second, he rarely attended sporting events, although he once owned a baseball team and was a self-confessed stats junkie. His thinking there was the same: If he went to a baseball game (right down the street from the White House), his mere presence would mean hours and hours of extra security for fans. He once stopped off at the Daytona 500 and the metal detectors through which every fan had to pass left thousands outside in line when the green flag fell; he didn’t attend many sporting events after that.

But something remarkable has happened with these occupants of the White House: Neither President Obama nor first lady Michelle appear to give a damn about perception. They won the White House and, by God, they’re going to enjoy their time there, no matter the cost. And who cares what you think, anyway?

How else to explain the nonstop vacations the pair keep taking during what Mr. Obama calls the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression”? In 2013, the First Family has already enjoyed three vacations — that’s one a month. (Sorry, Joe America, you might have to forget your week at the beach again this year, but make sure you get those taxes in on time!)

The Obamas ended 2012 and kicked off 2013 in an $8 million, 6,000-square-foot house in Hawaii (they left well before Dec. 25, by the way). There, the president played five rounds of golf (breaking the 100-rounds-as-president threshold). Scarcely a month into Term 2, Mrs. Obama headed off for Aspen, taking along the couple’s daughters. Vice President Joseph R. Biden also hit the Colorado slopes. While the girls (and Joe) were gone, Mr. Obama nipped down to Florida for a four-day boys weekend of golf, teeing it up with his buddies — and Tiger Woods. He hit the links again this weekend, then dropped in for an NCAA tournament game in Washington.

Jumpin’ Joe, for his part, spent New Year’s in the Virgin Islands and popped off over the Easter weekend for a golf outing at the glorious Kiawah Island, S.C. (where rounds of golf on the spectacular Ocean Course run $353 — nearly $20 a hole). His third vacation of the year came the same week as reports that he and his entourage spent $460,000 for a single night in London and $585,000 for a night at a five-star hotel in Paris.

Then, last week, reports emerged that the Obama girls were kicking it in the Bahamas for spring break. Days later, a Colorado news station, KMTV, reported that the girls were now skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. The White House flacks didn’t like that one bit.

“From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest,” said Kristina Schake, communications director to the first lady. “We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.”

At their demand, the station scrubbed the report without explanation. What losers.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with the daughters. Never has. They are wonderful girls. The issue is use of taxpayer money, especially since Mr. Obama has shut down the White House to visitors, citing the cost of security. All these trips cost millions for Secret Service protection; couldn’t they just skip a few vacations so taxpayers could visit “America’s House”?

But no, the Obamas don’t care a whit about that, or the perception of them living high on the hog while many hardworking Americans are struggling to get by — and hoping to save enough for just one vacation this year.

And that perception, juxtaposed with reality, more than nearly anything else, tells you an awful lot about this president.


• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at and @josephcurl.

1,000 Days Button – primer on what to expect at SOTU address

Editor’s Note – The Republicans attending the State of the Union address tonight are working to show solidarity that is in full opposition to Barack Obama’s doctrine(s), which to date, and on all topics, has failed miserably, despite his team’s spin.

In case the television cameras pan the gallery, you may wonder why some members are wearing a red button that reads “1,000 days” and what it means. It has been over 1,000 days since the Harry Reid Democrat Senate has presented a budget, and the red buttons are part of the attire tonight to demonstrate to all viewers just how failed in duty the Senate actually is.

In case you are wondering who will be in attendance as special guests, SUA is delighted to provide the list for you and the campaign reasons they are in attendance.

Debbie Bosanek is the headliner, but 20 other Americans — ranging from the military commander who helped kill Osama bin Laden to Apple founder Steve Jobs’s wife — will sit in first lady Michelle Obama’s box during the State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Adm. William McRaven, Laurene Powell Jobs, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro and Instagram co-founder Mike Krieger are among the guests of President Obama and his wife.

Asking ordinary, and extraordinary, Americans to attend the State of the Union speech has been a tradition for three decades for presidents, who use them to illustrate policy proposals and win political points for their accomplishments. Read the rest here.

The 2012 Obama slogan that this administration hopes to formally launch at the State Of The Union address is “Engage with Us”.

The most disgusting expectation of this State of the Union speech will not be to accurately state the condition of America, but rather, it will be a launch his 2012 campaign. We can only hope that there will be many Joe Wilson moments tonight.

As Republicans Bash ‘Empty Rhetoric,’ WH Pushes Online Version of Obama’s Speech: ‘Engage With Us’

By Susan Jones

( – The Obama White House is urging Americans to watch President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night either on television — or better yet, on the White House Web site or on a mobile phone — and then “engage with us and lend your voice to this debate.”

The online version of Obama’s speech will be “enhanced” with charts and graphs illustrating the president’s points.

In a video message on the White House Web site, senior adviser David Plouffe says President Obama, in his 9 p.m. speech tonight, will “lay out the progress we’ve made and the work we still have to do for how we build an economy that works for the middle class and rewards responsibility and hard work to make sure that everybody does their fair share, everybody gets a fair shake, everybody engages in fair play.”

When the president is done speaking, “we want to hear from you directly,” Plouffe said. Immediately after the speech, senior administration officials will hold a panel discussion — streamed live from the White House — giving people an opportunity to ask questions via Twitter, Facebook or Google-Plus.

“So you’re just not watching the speech but then you’re engaged afterwards, and able to really talk with us, help inform us better, and answer any questions you might have about what the president proposed in the State of the Union,” Plouffe said.

Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, in advance of Obama’s speech, have one main question: “Where are the jobs?”

“The president has proven he can deliver a great speech, but he continues to disappoint on the issue that matters most: jobs,” the committee said in a news release on Monday.

Republicans note that in 2009 — when a crashing economy shed roughly 4 million jobs — Democrats in Washington ignored the job losses and spent months focusing instead on a “costly government takeover of health care” that placed more pressure on job creators.

The committee also criticized Obama’s National Labor Relations Board for “promoting a culture of union favoritism at the expense of workers and employers.”

It took issue with burdensome federal regulations, noting that on Monday alone, Obama’s Labor Department issued 61 regulatory proposals.

The committee says the Obama administration has no new ideas to improve job training assistance or to untangle the “complicated maze of bureaucracy,” which includes dozens of separate job training programs spread across nine federal agencies.

And finally, the committee accused Obama of exacerbating the country’s fiscal crisis with “spending, spending, and more spending,” at a time when the national debt now stands at a staggering $15.2 trillion, this year’s federal deficit is on track to hit nearly $1 trillion, and unemployment sits above 8 percent for the 35th straight month.

The official Republican response to the State of the Union address will be delivered by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who at one time mulled a presidential run. The unofficial tea party response will come from former Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain.

Deep Pockets, Deep Secrets, Deep Ties – Where is our Deep Throat?

By Scott Winchell and Denise Simon

As the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators continue the tired “we are the 99%” mantra and accuse Wall Street of being greedy; the “one percenters” (1%), many commentators have said the OWS people are demonstrating in the wrong place. They should be marching to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. However, SUA suggests they expand that to the halls of Congress, the Judiciary, and the other agencies in the Executive Branch as well. The ‘pay-to-play’ world includes a large portion of all these people; elected and appointed.

The web site Open Secrets and many others have been shouting from the mountain tops to get people to notice the very lucrative world that openly enriches the real greedy people: the politicians, and belt-way insiders. Regardless of political stripe, it is amazing to see these numbers. Now we see that some have noticed, and 60 Minutes is about to air a program on one facet; ‘Congressional insider trading’.

We applaud Steve Kroft for his work, and we will be watching, but its more than just Congressmen using their positions to feather their nests and those of their family and friends, its also about people in very powerful positions making decisions for industry members they were once a big part of.

The left was very adamant about the fact that former VP Cheney ran Haliburton, but they turn a blind eye to their own ilk doing far worse, and in greater number. To really get a feel for what we are talking about, look at Open Secrets “Networth 2009” category to look up your favorite hero or most despised office holder. Here are a few people you may want to look at closer, especially in light of emerging scandals that seem to pop up daily.

From Open Secrets:

By law, members of Congress are only required to report their wealth and liabilities in broad ranges. It’s therefore impossible to precisely determine how much value their assets are worth, or have gained or lost. from year to year. The Center for Responsive Politics determines the minimum and maximum possible asset values for each member of Congress to calculate a member’s average estimated wealth.

Here are a few examples to examine as you watch news reports:

    • Steven Chu – Dept. of Energy Secretary; 2009 estimated net worth – $11.2 million. Think about Solyndra and Beacon Power, among others, also look at the “Positions Held” section that shows he served on the Copenhagen Climate Council.
    • Jon Corzine – Former NJ Governor and Senator, worth $225 million in 2004, now the CEO of the failed MF Global Holdings group where over 1,000 people are about to or have lost their jobs, and all of the swindled investors.
    • Steven Plouffe, advisor to President Obama worth an estimated $6 million who worked as a consultant for Boeing and GE. Yes, the GE run by Jeffrey Immelt, the man Obama named to head the Economic Advisory Panel.
    • How many of these insiders, or one-percenters are associated with Goldman-Sachs, or Boeing, beside Plouffe, and William Daley, who was Boeing’s Director. Wonder why the Obama administration’s Labor Relations Board (NLRB) does not want Boeing in South Carolina? The recently released email trail, mocking Boeing is appalling at the NLRB.
    • Then there are blind trusts, family foundations, and enriched family members. Think of Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law who happens to be the number two man at PCG – or, Rahm Emmanuel and his Charitable Family Trust worth over $15 million.
    • Can someone also tell us how Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is worth over $45 million, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer at $16 million, and Justice John Paul Stevens at $6 million – all left leaning judges, are not part of the 1%?
    • To be fair, Darrel Issa (R) is worth over $451 million and John Kerry (D) is worth over $294 million. Yes, John married into his money, twice, but please John, save the limousine liberal pomposity for the mirror.
    • Even Jack Abramoff, the convicted jail bird tells us that the practice of using special information available only to Congressmen and their staffers is common.

Then there is the whole reporting process where politicians only need to fill out forms by indicating a category of the level of asset or liability; they don’t need to be exact. To understand this reporting, Open Secrets describes how each figure is arrived upon.

More to read:

The country is broke, our system is broken, and the greedy are who again? Which party is what?

Here is the article on Congressional Insiders:

Congress insiders: Above the law?

CBS News

Martha Stewart went to jail for it. Hedge fund honcho Raj Rajaratnam was fined $92 million and will go to jail for years for it. But members of Congress can do the same thing -use non-public information to make stock trades — and there’s no law against it. Steve Kroft reports on how America’s lawmakers can legally make tidy profits on information only they know, simply because they won’t pass a law against themselves. The report will be broadcast on Sunday, Nov. 13 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Among the revelations in Kroft’s report:

Members of Congress have bought stock in companies while laws that could affect those companies were being debated in the House or Senate.

At least one representative made significant stock purchases the day after he and other members of Congress attended a secret meeting in September 2008, where the Fed chair and the treasury secretary informed them of the imminent global economic meltdown. The meeting was so confidential that cell phones and other digital devices were confiscated before it began.

If senators and representatives are using non-public information to win in the market, it’s all legal says Peter Schweizer, who works for the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. He has been examining these issues for some time and has written about them in a book, “Throw them All Out.” “[Insider trading laws] apply to corporate executives, to Americans…If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” he tells Kroft. “It’s really the way the rules have been defined…[lawmakers]have conveniently written them in such a way as they don’t apply to themselves,” says Schweizer.

Efforts to make such insider trading off limits to Washington’s lawmakers have never been able to get traction.

Former Rep. Brian Baird says he spent half of his 12 years in Congress trying to get co-sponsors for a bill that would ban insider trading in Congress and also set some rules up to govern conflicts of interest. In 2004, he and Rep. Louise Slaughter introduced the “Stock Act” to stop the insider trading. How far did they get? “We didn’t get anywhere. Just flat died,” he tells Kroft. He managed to get just six co-sponsors from a membership of over 400 representatives. “It doesn’t sound like a lot,” says Kroft. “It’s not Steve. You could have Cherry Pie Week and get 100 co-sponsors,” says Baird.