Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama Speech Tag

Obama's 2020 DNC speech was almost the opposite of the 2004 DNC speech that propelled him onto the national stage. If you watched this week, you heard very little about hope and the things that bring Americans together. Instead, this was a dark speech that was heavier on Obama's dislike of Trump than why you should vote for Joe Biden. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow loved the speech, naturally, but it also scared her.

President Obama has a history of publicly defending Hillary Clinton on her email scandal, and he did it again today on Fox News Sunday. Such public statements in and of themselves are improper political interference in agencies that report to the President. In a 60 Minutes interview in October 2015, Obama pretty much signaled Justice to lay off Hillary (emphasis added):
Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server– President Barack Obama: No. Steve Kroft: –while she was Secretary of State? President Barack Obama: No.

It's ironic to hear Obama complain about meanness in politics after surrogates for his 2012 campaign claimed Mitt Romney killed a woman with cancer. Let us also not forget the countless times members of his party called Republicans terrorists and hostage takers. Keep all of that in mind as you read this report from David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon:
Obama Decries ‘Meanness’ in Politics Under His Administration President Obama decried the “meanness” in politics that had erupted under his administration during an address about bipartisanship to the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday.

In case you missed it yesterday, Obama gave his last press conference of the year. We've compiled some clips to give you an idea of how it went. Obama clearly stated that the U.S. is going to defeat ISIS. NBC News reported:
Obama: 'We're Going to Defeat ISIS' President Obama dispelled any notion Friday that he intends to be a lame duck president and pledged that in 2016 "I'm going to leave it all out on the field." "We still have some unfinished business," an upbeat Obama said at what's likely to be his last press conference of the year before flying off to Hawaii for a family Christmas vacation.

On Friday, many Americans were taken aback when Obama elected not to address the nation in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack.  However, on Friday, he was busy meeting with Gabby Giffords about gun control, so while he addressed the issue in his weekly address, he'll be delivering a speech tonight (at 8 p.m. EST). Going by reports of tonight's speech so far, anyone hoping for what Megyn Kelly calls the "Comforter in Chief" or for him to declare the San Bernardino terror attack an act of war will be disappointed. Apparently, Obama's plan is to lecture us on what terrorism is and how it came about (his version of it, anyway), bemoan the Second Amendment protections afforded the American people, and harangue Congress into passing stricter gun laws. This sounds ripe for another Obama speech drinking game.

President Obama used his regular weekly radio address on Saturday to discuss the San Bernardino shootings, which now have been categorized---although not by Obama---as the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. He will give a televised speech from the Oval Office Sunday night. In the radio address, Obama offered very tepid stuff in terms of the terrorist connection, as one might expect from Obama. The speech began with praise for the police and rescuers and sympathy for the victims and families (and prayers; notify the Daily News that the president has gone off the reservation). But when Obama starts discussing the causes of the attack, he defers to the investigators---although those very investigators have now said they are investigating it as a terrorist attack. All he has to say about that is the following:

Obama has received justified criticism for not giving a statement about the killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had a long criminal record and had been deported five times. The silence stands in contrast to Obama issuing statements and otherwise commenting on the death of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and others. That criticism comes mostly from conservative media. The mainstream media has slightly touched the story, but nowhere near as extensively as other cases. Surely, with all the criticism, at least one reporter at today's press conference would have asked a question about Kate's murder. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kate-steinle-killed-felon-san-francisco-laid-rest-article-1.2287802 The press conference primarily addressed the Iran nuclear deal, but other issues were raised towards the end, including prison reform, revoking Bill Cosby's Medal of Freedom, and Obama's upcoming trip to Kenya.

President Barack Obama focused on global climate change in his commencement remarks at the Coast Guard Academy.
“I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and – make no mistake – it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama said. He added that climate change deniers are negligent and derelict in their duties. "And if you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead, you don’t just sit back and do nothing. You take action to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. And so too with climate change. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security," he said.
For those of you want to endure the entire speech, here is the White House video: There are so many perplexing aspects to these remarks, I hardly know where to begin. Such a great deal of evidence refutes the climate assertions made by environmental activists (including expanding Antarctic glacial levels) that failure to question the premise is a dereliction of common sense.

Within hours of the White House celebrating a supposed Iran nuclear framework "deal," it became apparent that the various sides -- the U.S., the Iranians and the Europeans -- had very different understandings of the deal. Those competing narratives now have moved to the stage of open declarations by senior Iranian officials that the White House is lying and that key elements in a White House Fact Sheet never were agreed upon and are unacceptable. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has taken to Twitter to call the Obama administration a bunch of untrustworthy liars: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/586113075809558528

There is no Iran nuke "deal," but whatever there is to the framework, even Obama now admits it paves Iran's path to the bomb, albeit on a delayed fuse, as AP reports, Obama says Iran could cut nuke time to near zero in 13 years:
Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years. Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material. "What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.
It's not at all clear that 13 years is the correct number, as opposed to 10. But regardless, the point is that at the end of this process Iran is ready to produce a bomb. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Netanyahu: Nuke Deal 'Paves Iran's Path to the Bomb':

The Iran nuke Framework deal is bad for anyone other than Iran. Iran achieved its two key negotiating objectives: Keep its nuclear infrastructure in place and get sanctions relief. https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/583994063512276992 As The Washington Post editorial board points out, these parameters are contrary to the bottom line Obama spelled out at the start of the negotiations: THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. How did Iran do it? By setting its own negotiating red line and refusing to budge. I've seen that negotiating tactic hundreds of time -- it's effective only when the opposing party is not willing to walk away from the negotiation. That's us. Obama so desperately wanted a deal that he was not willing to walk away. The Iranians didn't need to walk away, they just needed to dig in behind their red line and wait. So Obama capitulated on the key insistance of Iran keeping it's nuclear program intact, and then negotiated over the rest. Obama admitted as much in his speech after the Framework was announced:

Well that "Framework" negotiation was fun. For the Iranians, who got a great deal at least as far as a Framework goes. As this WaPo editorial points out, the Obama administration gave up on key parameters:
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
In his speech after the announcement, Obama took care not only to repeat the false rhetorical device of the only choice being between this deal and war, he blamed that choice on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Horvitz at The Times of Israel writes, Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil:

I just booked my plane tickets to visit Israel in May. Maybe I'll call it an Apology Tour. I'll let Israelis know that the current administration, with its childish chickens**t taunting treatment of Israel, does not represent the American people, who overwhelmingly support Israel. (Will this violate the Logan Act?) Fortunately, I have the speech already written for me:
In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate [Israeli's] leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic [nation] and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Remember Rebekah Erler, President Obama's premiere "everywoman" success story from last night's State of the Union address? The one whose family inspired the leader of the free world to stand up for the common man by...raising their taxes, or something? As it turns out, Rebekah isn't just an inspiration. She's an operative. Rebekah has been used before by the White House to tout its controversial fiscal policies. Last summer, President Obama spent a well-publicized day with her, taking in "real America" and picking up talking points about the excessively nice people up in Minnesota. Though all of this, the White House failed to mention one important detail: Rebekah is a former Democratic campaign operative. She worked for Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) as a field organizer. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Reuter's revealed Erler's affiliations after her day spent with Obama; Republicans fought back, accusing Obama of being out of touch with average Minnesotans. The real scandal here isn't that the White House fabricated a success story; that's old news. The scandal is that internationally-read publications have revealed this woman's affiliations and bias, and the White House trotted her out anyway. They really don't care, do they?
Font Resize
Contrast Mode