As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Obama

Obama: “I Could Win” if I Ran Again

Don’t worry, he was joking, he’s not plotting to run again. But I’m sure he thinks he could win.

And I’m sure it would help the Democrats as Hillary continues her long, agonizing flameout.

Speaking to a meeting of the African Union in Ethiopia today, President Obama suggested he could take on all comers in 2016.

“I actually think I’m a pretty good president,” he said. “I think if I ran, I could win. I can’t.”

Obama was actually criticizing African presidents who seek third terms, suggesting, I gather, that they were undermining democracy.

And in a sign that he’s read for the fairways, he added that he doesn’t understand why people want to stay in office “especially when they have got a lot of money.”

I think, actually he would not win.

But I’ve thought that before.

Report: Obama Program Would Allow Cities to Annex Suburbs

President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation is part of a long-term effort by the Left to co-opt the suburbs into the cities and remove the perceived unfair advantages maintained by surburbanites over urban residents, according to an article in the National Review.

The writer, Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues that the administration has been influenced by from the book “Cities Without Suburbs,” written by David Rusk. From the piece:

Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama administration, initially called on cities to annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became clear that outright annexation was a political non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a series of measures designed to achieve de facto annexation over time.

Kurtz says the rule effectively erases the line between city and suburb by forcing suburbs to import low-income residents into their areas and create the infrastructure to support them.

In significant measure, the rule amounts to a de facto regional annexation of America’s suburbs. To see why, let’s have a look at the rule. AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD . . .

It’s not enough for, say, Philadelphia’s “Mainline” Montgomery County suburbs to analyze their own populations by race, ethnicity, and class to determine whether there are any imbalances in where groups live, or in access to schools, parks, transportation, and jobs. Those suburbs are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Philadelphia region as a whole.

So if some Montgomery County’s suburbs are predominantly upper-middle-class, white, and zoned for single-family housing, while the Philadelphia region as a whole is dotted with concentrations of less-well-off African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, those suburbs could be obligated to nullify their zoning ordinances and build high-density, low-income housing at their own expense. At that point, those suburbs would have to direct advertising to potential minority occupants in the Greater Philadelphia region. Essentially, this is what HUD has imposed on Westchester County, New York, the most famous dry-run for AFFH . . .

And to make sure the new high-density housing developments are close to “community assets” such as schools, transportation, parks, and jobs, bedroom suburbs will be forced to develop mini-downtowns. In effect, they will become more like the cities their residents chose to leave in the first place.

Not only can HUD withhold funds from localities that don’t comply, but it and private groups can initiate “disparate impact” lawsuits that would treat any demographic imbalance as de facto discrimination.

Ultimately, as Kurtz indicates, this is apiece with Obama’s promise in 2008 to “spread the wealth around.” Only this time, instead of taxing the middle class and the wealthy and giving to the poor, he is moving the poor in with the middle and upper class and forcing them to pay the rent.

Obama to Hold a Press Conference on Iran

President Obama Wednesday will hold an East Room press conference to try to explain what on earth he was thinking when he agreed to the deal with Iran. The proceedings will begin at 1:00 pm Obama Standard Time, which is generally Eastern Time plus about twenty minutes.

I will live stream it for you.

Obama Trumpets the Iran Deal

Speaking at the White House this morning, President Obama expressed confidence that the United States could hold Iran to the agreement.

“We will be in a position to verify all these commitments,” Obama said. “Inspectors will be able to access any suspicious locations.”

Sanctions against Iran will be lifted gradually, Obama said, and if Iran violates the deal, “all these sanctions will snap back into place.”

Obama added that the “military option,” which few think he has seriously considered anyway, would be back on the table if Iran resorts to cheating, which few think it is not seriously considering.

Um, unless of course Iran has cheated by developing a nuclear weapon.

Obama vowed to veto legislation that prevents the deal from going forward. He preemptively accused Republicans of playing politics. “This is not the time for politics or posturing,” Obama said. “Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems.”

Remember, if you don’t agree with Obama, you are either out of your mind or playing politics.

Obama said “we will continue our unprecedented efforts to” strengthen Israel, claiming he has done more on this than any other president. Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu Tuesday called the agreement a “capitulation” to Iran.

Obama suggested the deal might be the beginning of a new Iran. “It is possible to change,” Obama said of the Iranian government, saying the ability of the Iranian people to “prosper and thrive” depended on it.

And that, of course, is the central misconception underlying this agreement. Because the ability of Iranians to “prosper and thrive” is not the goal of the terrorist, jihadist, Islamist leadership in charge of the country.

Obama Commutes Sentences of 46 prisoners

President Obama today commuted the sentences of 46 prisoners as part of an ongoing administration review of prison sentences designed to weed out overly harsh punishments and reduce the prison population.

Well, good for him. I am someone who believes strongly in giving people a second chance. Gosh, I give myself a second chance often enough. The guidelines for this review are very strict, seeking to ensure that only those in the best position to make it outside the can are put on the street.

Glancing through the records of the prisoners, it looks like most of them are cocaine dealers, particularly crack cocaine. This of course wades into a race issue, because convicts have received much harsher sentences for crack cocaine offenses than for the more polite forms of the drug.

Many involved in crack are poor and black, meaning they got harsher treatment than wealthier white people who had it passed into their noses by rolled up portraits of Andrew Jackson or Alexander Hamilton. Doesn’t quite seem fair. Those covered under Obama’s actions were nonviolent criminals, most serving more than 20 years and some life sentences. Seems too harsh to me.

Anyone receiving a commuted sentence had to be nonviolent, generally not associated with a gang, in prison for ten years, and on their best behavior while incarcerated.

“These men and women were not hardened criminals,” Obama said. “Their punishments didn’t fit the crimes. And if they were sentenced under today’s laws, nearly all of them would have served their time.”

OPM Director Archuleta Resigns

Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta resigned Friday, a day after it was revealed that some 22 million people – millions more than had previously been admitted – had their data hacked by what is believed to be Chinese attackers.

Beth Cobert, the U.S. Chief Performance Officer and a deputy director at the Office of Management and Budget, will take over as acting director of OPM Saturday.

The White House made it as clear as anyone ever does in these situations that Archuleta, who just Thursday proclaimed she wanted to stay on and address the problems at OPM, was fired.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama believed Archuleta was in fact not the right person to continue at OPM:

Director Archuleta did offer her resignation today. She did so of her own volition. She recognizes, as the White House does that the urgent challenges currently facing the Office of Personnel management require a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences. That’s precisely why the president has accepted her resignation and assigned Beth Cobert to take on the responsibilities of the OPM director on an acting basis . . . she spent three decades working as a management expert at Mckinsey.

What the president thinks is that it’s quite clear, that new leadership with a set of skills and experiences, that are unique to the urgent challenges that OPM faces, are badly needed.

While not acknowledging any White House culpability – Earnest said Obama brought cybersecurity up at a recent Cabinet meeting, though or course that was after the hacking – Earnest tried to involve the Republicans in the problem, noting their desire to cut federal funding.

Right now there is a vigorous debate on Capitol Hill among Republicans who want to slash government funding, and slash funding for agencies, that will necessarily have an impact on a wide variety of priorities that these agencies confront, including basic cybersecurity.

So the clear lesson here is, if Obama can’t manage the government, it’s because the government isn’t big enough. Or something like that.

Even as he suggested a strong manager was needed, Earnest refused repeatedly to say specifically that the failure to prevent the hacking stemmed from a failure in management.

Obama: We Have Common Values with Brazil; Similar History

During his press conference at the White House Tuesday with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, President Obama asserted that Brazil and the United States are “similar.” A lot of people wouldn’t have noticed this, but Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit did. And it’s a serious part of the problem with Obama. He said: Our common values, the strong… Continue Reading

White House Bathed in Rainbow

The White House Friday evening was lit up in rainbow, the symbol of the gay rights movement. Addressing a heckler the other day, President Obama complained that he was being interrupted in “my house.” It is not his house. It is the people’s house. All the people. And it should not be used as a billboard for… Continue Reading

Obama: Prejudice “Still Infects Our Society”

President Obama Friday used the Charleston, South Carolina funeral of the murdered Rev. Clementa Pinckney to tie the problems of the black community to racism, indicting an American society he says continues to harbor deep prejudices and willingly ignores the hatred, to the detriment of African Americans. Pinckney was the leader of Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church,… Continue Reading