ContributorNetwork – COMMENTARY | Some would have us believe the president plays a much smaller role in determining what our economy does than most people believe. I think Americans believe the president has a lot of actual power to correct the economy, and that assumption is incorrect. But many chief executives have used the Oval Office to manipulate change and foster growth that isn’t specifically empowered to the presidency.

Continue reading here:
President’s Economic Influence Isn’t Limited — Obama Just Misuses It
(ContributorNetwork)

Scroll down for an update to this story: Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. The letter condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.” However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. military were “forbidden” from reading this letter. After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the letter to be read at Sunday masses, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication “forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider ‘s Michael Dougherty reports. Military officials felt that “the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online , and the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. “Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass,” Lopez writes. Despite these instructions, some chaplains read the letter anyway. Business Insider reports: More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. Some reasoned that because the letter was not “politically driven,” and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the “sanctity of life,” they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze. Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential letter was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI): The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge. Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online ): On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit.  The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel. Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter.  Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience. The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service. Update : The decision to forbid the chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up. In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997). The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order “violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et . seq ,” according to Free Preach . The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional: What we have here is the government’s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165. Free Preach writes: In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs’ religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government “to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an ‘important component’ of the [plaintiffs'] faiths.” Id . at 161. Moreover, the court held that “[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress” about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith “appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs' faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden.” Id . The government then argued that the chaplains’ contemplated speech was “not religious” but merely “political.” The court rejected this argument also, holding that “it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not.” Id . at 164. Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were “outweighed by the . . . chaplains’ right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons.” Id . at 162. It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added]. Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. military have right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass? This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available.

See the rest here:
U.S. Military Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling

Tagged with:
 

AP – President Barack Obama met with former President George H.W. Bush and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Oval Office on Friday, joining in a bipartisan gathering in an election year.

Read the original:
Obama meets with George H.W. and Jeb Bush
(AP)

North Carolina’s Governor Won’t Run

On January 27, 2012, in barack obama, Uncategorized, by Matvej32MIRONOV

Gov. Bev Perdue said she wouldn’t seek re-election, an unexpected development that could complicate Democrats’ efforts to hold on to the office and President Barack Obama’s chances of carrying the state.

See the original post here:
North Carolina’s Governor Won’t Run

Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac

On January 26, 2012, in barack obama, Uncategorized, by VecchiarelliKearny599

**Written by Doug Powers President Obama went to Arizona Wednesday afternoon, and according to Governor Jan Brewer who met him on the airport tarmac, the Book-Critic-in-Chief took her to task for something she recently published : He stepped off Air Force One at 3:28 pm and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer. She handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope and they spoke intensely for a few minutes. At one point, she pointed her finger at him. Afterwards, (I) spoke with the governor. “He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast,” Brewer said. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.” It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence. When Brewer spoke with your pooler, the AP and an NBC producer for several minutes afterwards, she appeared a bit flustered and taken aback by the conversation. Asked if she was, that’s when Brewer said, “I’ll regroup.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had a similar run-in during the BP Gulf oil spill. Obama is expected to even both scores in his next book, “Sweat the Petty Stuff.” Here’s video from a local news story: Feel free to provide your own caption: Over at Hot Air, Allapundit has audio of a radio interview with Jan Brewer describing what happened: “He was somewhat thin skinned and a little tense, to say the least.” Jay Carney will probably be given the opportunity to distort what happened at tomorrow’s White House presser, so we’ll have to wait to get the Obama administration’s version of events. Meanwhile, the fate of Arizona’s immigration law simmers in the Supreme Court. (h/t Drudge ) **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Link:
Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac

**Written by Doug Powers President Obama went to Arizona Wednesday afternoon, and according to Governor Jan Brewer who met him on the airport tarmac, the Book-Critic-in-Chief took her to task for something she recently published : He stepped off Air Force One at 3:28 pm and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer. She handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope and they spoke intensely for a few minutes. At one point, she pointed her finger at him. Afterwards, (I) spoke with the governor. “He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast,” Brewer said. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.” It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence. When Brewer spoke with your pooler, the AP and an NBC producer for several minutes afterwards, she appeared a bit flustered and taken aback by the conversation. Asked if she was, that’s when Brewer said, “I’ll regroup.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had a similar run-in during the BP Gulf oil spill. Obama is expected to even both scores in his next book, “Sweat the Petty Stuff.” Here’s video from a local news story: Feel free to provide your own caption: Over at Hot Air, Allapundit has audio of a radio interview with Jan Brewer describing what happened: “He was somewhat thin skinned and a little tense, to say the least.” Jay Carney will probably be given the opportunity to distort what happened at tomorrow’s White House presser, so we’ll have to wait to get the Obama administration’s version of events. Meanwhile, the fate of Arizona’s immigration law simmers in the Supreme Court. (h/t Drudge ) **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Go here to see the original:
Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac

Obama’s ‘Better Late Than Never’ Budget

On January 24, 2012, in barack obama, Uncategorized, by StevenLWhiteheader

It’s that time of year again – time to formulate the FY 2013 federal budget.  Like every family, business, and organization, the federal government must draft an annual budget.  Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats treat this fundamental necessity with callous disregard. Pursuant to the 1974 Budget Act, the president must submit a budget to Congress on the first Monday in February, roughly seven months prior to the start of the new fiscal year.  After reviewing the budget, along with analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), each house of Congress must pass its own budget resolution by April 15. Yesterday, the White House announced that they will disregard the law a nd submit the budget a week later on February 13 , even though they had an entire year to work on it.  Actually, this is the third year that Obama will submit a tardy budget.  For those keeping score, he’s only been president for three years.  This might appear to be a minor banal detail; however, it is profoundly emblematic of this administration’s apathy for fiscal prudence and balanced budgets. There is an obvious reason why there is a lack of alacrity on the part of Obama to submit a budget.  Last year, Obama submitted a $3.8 trillion budget with a record $1.6 trillion deficit, even though numerous tax hikes were included in the budget.  He proposed $46 trillion in new spending over 10 years, with a projected deficit of $7.2 trillion, even with unrealistically optimistic economic forecasts.  To put that in practical terms, Obama’s proposed deficits would have cost every taxpayer over $67,000.  His budget was such an embarrassment that not a single Democrat voted for it in the Senate.  No wonder he is uncomfortable releasing his FY 2013 budget! When he finally gets around to submitting his budget, it will be more of the same, except for additional tax hikes and defense cuts to ensconce the severity of the budget deficit. But at least the president is forced to submit some sort of a budget, albeit a tardy one.  As of today, it has been 1,000 days since congressional Democrats have submitted any budget. The Republican Study Committee offers and interesting perspective on the 1,000-day duration: If Democrats are convinced that their welfare empire is so virtuous, why are they bashful  when it comes time to putting their proposals on paper in black ink?  Then again, in their case, it would all be full of red ink. Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Read more from the original source:
Obama’s ‘Better Late Than Never’ Budget

AP – President Barack Obama is promising the nation an economy that gives a shot to everyone and not just the rich, using Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to draw an election-year battle line with Republicans over fairness and the free market. Driving everything about the speech: jobs, including his own.

The rest is here:
Obama makes case for fairness; GOP calls it rehash
(AP)

Tagged with:
 

The Land of Obama Make-Believe

On January 20, 2012, in Uncategorized, by BiddieDezeeuw515

Official White House photo The Land of Obama Make-Believe by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals. And where’d he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain’t child’s play, you know. Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella’s castle as his backdrop. “America is open for business,” he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe. Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed — after years of planning and review — in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism: “President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America’s energy independence,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said. “The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence,” Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented. “This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security,” Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando’s fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there’s no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.) On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 — hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It’s Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact. And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with — wait for it — solar panels. Instead of supporting new infrastructure jobs in America through an energy independence-enhancing project that has bipartisan legislative support on Capitol Hill, the president flew to Disney World to peddle looser visa restrictions in China and Brazil by executive order . He also will expand the Visa Waiver Program (a security loophole-ridden program that was suspended temporarily after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) to speed foreign travel. In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express Program, which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil is just the latest base for al-Qaida and other Islamic jihadi groups. It does not consider Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist groups, and it disbanded its anti-terrorism force in 2009. The Visa Waiver Program and other efforts to expedite the tourist visa process also pose continuing security risks because — as the Government Accountability Office itself admitted last year — there is still no comprehensive, systematic way to track the 70 million-plus foreign visitors who enter the country on tourist and other short-term visas. Indeed, half of the nation’s estimated 20 million illegal aliens are visa overstayers. How many of the new Disney foreign tourists whom Obama is touting as America’s economic salvation will fail to return to their home countries after their Obama World visas expire? We’ll likely never know. And Team Obama doesn’t care. In his opening campaign ad salvo, Obama accuses his opponents of being “untethered to facts.” But this is an administration that believes lowering visa standards and risking homeland security to pump up Disney foreign tourism is a better path to economic recovery than supporting direct American job creation and enhancing energy security. Like the Disney characters he posed with this week, our cartoonish president is wholly untethered to reality.

Read more:
The Land of Obama Make-Believe

Tagged with:
 

Over on the NRO homepage, a what-might-have-been story : Some frustrated GOP consultants contemplated starting a long-shot effort to draft Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, or Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan into the presidential race, despite the trio’s repeated statements that they’re not interested in running for the office. Noting that Henry Cabot Lodge won the 1964 New Hampshire primary on a write-in bid (when Lodge was not a declared candidate), these veterans of past presidential campaigns wondered if a strong showing from a similar write-in effort might prompt one of those men to change his mind. Unaffiliated GOP leaders were tempted by the idea, but were doubtful it would lead to anything constructive; a candidate who jumped in so late would not be able to win enough delegates to win the nomination, at least in states where there is still time to qualify for the ballot. A strong late entrant could probably lead to a divided convention, but could not win the nomination outright. In a primary campaign cycle that has seen high drama and plenty of twists and turns, a convention fight leading to the nomination of a figure who didn’t intend to run throughout 2011 might have been the biggest shock ending of all.

See original here:
The Jindal, McDonnell, and Ryan Bids That Almost Happened