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.

'Sequestration' Hypocrisy – Gov Still Hiring as Services are Cut

Editor’s Note – The height of hypocrisy is on full display by the Obama White House as tours are closed, FAA personnel and towers are cut, Blue Angels training is postponed, soldier tuition assistance is cut, and the list just keeps getting longer, all cited as cuts due to ‘sequestration’, yet many departments are hiring.

Not only that, but so much waste, duplicity, fraud, and abuse still goes on, despite Obama’s pledge to go line by line over the budget to cut such egregious spending. But, “we have to keep releasing illegal aliens…!”

Government Advertises for Nearly 2,600 New Jobs Since Sequestration

This includes 107 new positions at the Department of Homeland Security, which has freed illegal immigrants citing budgetary constraints.

By Bridget Johnson – PJ Media

With Office of Management and Budget fact sheets in hand, President Obama warned of dire cutbacks and consequences should sequestration go into effect March 1. The cuts happened, White House tours have been halted, and the administration swears it’s not overreacting to the bare-bones budget directive.

But in the days since the hammer of sequestration fell, the federal government is hiring anew. A search tonight of the USA Jobs federal employment website, filtered to positions in the United States and posted over the past 10 days, yielded 2,596 results.

This includes 107 positions at the Department of Homeland Security, which has claimed cutbacks have resulted in everything from a more taxing security line at airports to the need to free illegal immigrant detainees.

Jobs included transportation security officers in rural areas, a library technician in Baltimore, a recreational boating safety specialist in Cleveland, natural hazards program specialists in Denton, Texas, and various program analyst positions in the D.C. area. Various six-figure supervisory jobs are also open.

One hundred and fifteen jobs have been posted since sequestration began for the Agriculture Department, which warned of Americans falling ill from tainted food due to short staffing should sequestration go into effect.

Jobs posted included soil technicians, a recreation forestry technician in Sedona, Ariz., a dairy grader in Winnsboro, Texas, an archaeologist in McCall, Idaho, and a social science analyst.

The highest number of job postings since sequestration went into effect is at the Department of Veterans Affairs, with 909 new openings at the time of publication. The OMB painted a grim picture of tens of thousands of homeless vets being returned to the streets due to the budget cuts.

As the OMB warned Indian tribes would lose nearly $130 million in funding from the Interior Department, 115 new jobs have been posted in the sequestration era including multiple park guides to stock up for the summer, a museum aide, plant technicians, and more.

And while the White House warned of hundreds of furloughed federal prosecutors and a thousand fewer criminal cases being brought to court each year, the Justice Department has 46 new job postings including a public affairs specialist for the U.S. Attorneys, a law librarian, a trial attorney, and a deputy chief for the civil rights division.

New job postings at random agencies include a six-figure IT specialist at the Railroad Retirement Board, an exhibition aid for the National Gallery of Art, an Albanian-language broadcaster, and a space-assignment technician at the National Archives.

The office of the president is advertising for a management analyst, with a salary of $51,630 to $97,333 per year, to provide “assistance, research, advice and consultation on a full scope of administrative, managerial and financial projects in support of the Office of Administration.” Relocation assistance is not included.

If anyone does want to complain about sequestration job losses, though, the Office of Personnel Management is hiring a customer service specialist for its call center.

Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) wrote to Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients, noting that many nonessential federal job postings were still going up despite pressure on the office to warn agencies that hiring activity should be scrutinized in the face of sequestration.

On the first business day after sequestration, 606 new jobs were posted on the USA Jobs site.

“While some of these positions may be essential to the mission of the agency, others plainly are not,” Coburn wrote. “…According to OMB, the average annual salary for a government employee is around $76,000. This means that the average new hire equates to a one week furlough for 52 current government employees.”

Jobs found by Coburn on March 4 and highlighted in the letter to Zients included 23 openings that included “recreation” in the title and a historian for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“While the Air Force may need leadership for its museums and history programs, and the USDA may need to keep its literature in order, those needs should take a back seat to the dire threat to public health and safety that some have claimed will result from sequestration,” Coburn wrote. “Canceling the opening for the librarian position at USDA could offset one week of furloughs for as many as 104 to 156 food inspectors.”

Bozel reveals "Pinocchio" on the stump

Editor’s Note – Does truth matter? Not if your working on the Obama campaign.

Its almost become a running joke, especially on the social networking sites – How can you tell if Obama is lying? His lips are moving.

This also goes to the completely hypocritical talking heads like the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She had the nerve to say:

“It Would Be Nice If We Had A Candidate for President Who Was Committed To America”

Certainly connoting that Obama displays more commitment to America than Mitt Romney.

Alex Wagner, MSNBC host: Do you think there is something illegal here because there’s certainly — the line, the rhetoric would certainly seem to suggest that as it has been voiced by folks on the left and the president’s reelection campaign?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC: That’s the problem. We don’t know because Mitt Romney has released one year of tax returns and an estimate of another year. That’s totally contrary to his own father, when he ran for president, who said that releasing only one year is unacceptable because it could be an anomaly.

The funny thing is, the DNC learned of his accounts, from his tax return. Now they demand more returns, even though Romney already met the bar of previous campaigns, yet no one holds Obama to his record – the ones we cannot see. What about that Connecticut Social Security number…etc., etc., etc?

There seems to be a complete whitewash of the fact that Obama, for years, has hidden every last vestige of information about his life, yet they want to hold others to a different bar! Hypocrisy and lying, now there’s something to hang your hat on when you ask for America’s vote.

Read what Brent Bozell has to say in response to recent speeches and statements:

Obama’s Stump Speech Myths

By Brent Bozell – Town Hall Online

Barack Obama has trouble telling the truth.

This is the man who admitted his memoir “Dreams from My Father” was semifictional. “For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology.” Translation: On some pages, I’m taking poetic license with the facts to burnish my image.

The problem is, Obama’s still using poetic license. So where are the reporters to point out when he doesn’t tell the truth? Let’s take just one typical Obama stump speech, on July 5 in Sandusky, Ohio, and look for the fibs and stretches. They’re not hard to find.

1. There are the biographical tall tales. “My grandfather fought in Patton’s army.” In 2009, AP’s Nancy Benac noted that the president’s grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was in a supply and maintenance company, not in combat. That’s noble work, but “fought in Patton’s army” implies something else. Moreover, Benac reported Dunham’s company was assigned to Patton’s army for two months in 1945, and then quoted Obama’s own self-boosting memoir: “Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat.” Why has Benac been alone in exploring this blatant exaggeration?

2. There are the policy myths. “So when folks said let’s go ahead and let the auto industry go bankrupt, we said no let’s bet on American workers. Let’s bet on American industries, and now, GM is back on top, and Chrysler is moving, and Ford is going strong.”

Put aside for a moment that GM being “on top” is a stretch. GM still owes the public $30 billion for the bailout. But the real screamer in that passage is Ford never succumbed to bankruptcy and bailouts and therefore shouldn’t be included in any boast of any sort of Obama achievements.

Some lines in the speech just sound ridiculous based on the last three and a half years, such as: “I want to balance our budget. I want to reduce our deficit, deal with our debt, but I want to do it in a balanced and responsible way.” This might not be strictly “false” — it’s opinion — but it’s certainly disingenuous. He said the same thing in 2008 and then delivered the biggest trillion-dollar deficit in history.

Obama also refuses to admit the failure of the “stimulus,” claiming in one passage, “I do want to rebuild our roads and our bridges” because it would “put a lot of people back to work — and that’s good for the entire economy.” Except, it’s demonstrably not true.

3. Then there are the religious myths. “When I first got my job as an organizer for the Catholic churches in Chicago … they taught me that no government program can replace good neighbors and people who care deeply about their communities (and) who are fighting on their behalf.”

In how many ways is this deeply insincere? Obama was hired by a Jewish Alinsky-ite leftist named Jerry Kellman for something called the Developing Communities Project, which did have Catholic support, but Obama’s own memoir described the community organizing work as a chance to “start to build power” — with a “hard-headedness” based on “politics, not religion.”

In his stump speech, Obama’s trying to create two false impressions:

  1. That he’s not waging war on the Catholic Church with his Department of Health and Human Services mandate to force Catholics to fund contraceptives and sterilization against their conscience.
  2. That he’s some sort of moderate about how government programs couldn’t possibly replace person-to-person private charity. If he were Catholic, he might be excommunicated.

4. Finally, there are the campaign myths. Obama bizarrely told the crowd in Sandusky “back in 2008, everybody said we couldn’t do it because we were outspent, we weren’t favored.” Did Obama mean in the primary race? By a slim margin, he outraised Hillary Clinton, who was the early favorite. But this spin is comical if it refers to the general election, where Obama outraised McCain $779 million to $347 million.

Then Obama added: “That first race that I ran as a state senator, Michelle and I, we were going around knocking on doors, passing out leaflets. Nobody gave us a shot. Everybody said, ‘Nobody can pronounce your name, how are you going to win?'” But Obama ran unopposed in 1996, both in the primary and the general election. In a burst of Chicago-style politics, Obama removed his primary opponents, including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, from the ballot by challenging their signatures.

When will the alleged fact-checkers in the news media vet Obama’s stump speech and demand he start telling the truth?