You have to admit he handled things much better than Bush did Katrina. He got the storm to dissapate and stuff.

ya... I suppose... he didn't bomb any levees either... that we know of anyway... 😟

Yup. And he didn't allow biden to fly any planes into buildings.

I heard FEMA money comes outta the vacation and icecream fund.....

FEMA is the NWO shadow government.

NWO ICECREAM OUTRAGE!


(I hope it had GMO's in it.......)

FEMA is part of the WWF/WWE?

"Don't die, Snake!"

In prison?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=344461 




Hahahahhahaha!!!!!!!! Awesome.

Obama's urgent jobs plan: Right now, 'right now' means sometime next month maybe
September 19, 2011 | 5:18 am 389

Everybody remembers the urgency of President Obama's attitude toward the awful jobs situation.

Back in early August, Obama said the jobs situation was so urgent that he was going to give another speech about it -- in a month or so, in September after his vacation on Martha's Vineyard.

And then in September the president announced he would give his major jobs speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 7. But he neglected to check with congressional leaders first. And they suggested the 8th. So, since it was their House, the 8th it was.

"Tonight," the president said in the first 34 of his 4,021 words to a national television audience that night, "we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse."

The speech got panned as another political campaign one with Obama announcing, in effect, that....

...since the first stimulus spending plan of $787 billion hadn't really worked, maybe another $447 billion stimulus spending plan would.
This is the kind of thinking that can make sense within Washington. But since "stimulus" has become a laugh line, he didn't use that word anymore.

And, hey, the debt ceiling had been raised to $16 trillion. (Speaking of which the president speaks on the debt this morning in another speech because he's a Real Good Talker.) So why not spend a half-trillion more to look like he's doing something about the terrible jobs situation with 14+ million unemployed?

If Republicans didn't bite, no one would know Obama's Plan B was never going to work anyway. And he could try to blame the GOP next year for failing schools and rusting bridges. This also seems to make sense within Washington these days.

The president was in such a hurry to get this new spending going, everyone remembers, that during that address he said the phrase "right now" seven times. He didn't actually mean right now that night because the NFL season was opening a few minutes after his remarks.

But Obama did want to show how really urgent he said the situation was, even though it had taken him 961 days as president to say them. And even though from Day #1 of the brief Obama Era polls had shown jobs and the economy were the No. 1 priority among voters but he pursued healthcare and financial reforms first. And even though unemployment had been at or above 9% for 26 of the last 28 months.

So, given the president's professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation?

And, well, it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn't actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday.

Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we've just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, ****** Durbin, that actually it seems that body won't really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there's this month's congressional vacation, which in Washington is called "a recess," like elementary school.
Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:"

CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...

CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

Good thing the president's own Democratic party controls the Senate. Because, otherwise, there might be some kind of silly, unnecessary delays in deliberating Obama's urgent jobs bill that he says will surely help the nation's unemployed millions if only those Republicans don't connive to slow things down.









](*,)
This is EXACTLY why Experience Matters!

This is what Hope and Change looks like people.

Those that voted for this mess, are you happy with it?

Did you know you were really getting a big side of "It's Bush's fault" and not some rolled sleeves digging in kinda solutions?

Sounds more like you wanted a guy that could shift blame than actually do their job.

Remember that when it comes time to vote for this idiot again. Unless you're still tingling in the legs and a walking racist zombie...stick with your union marching orders.

This President is setting records for ineptitude that Jimmy Carter could never reach........................

Michelle Obama's Africa Trip Cost More Than $424,142

October 4, 2011

First lady Michelle Obama's family trip to South Africa and Botswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000, according to new accounting based on Air Force manifests obtained by Judicial Watch, a taxpayer watchdog group.

The use of Air Force aircraft alone for the June 21-27 trip cost $424,142, said the group, and that doesn't include the food, lodging, and ground transportation for the 21 family and staff members.

Judicial Watch said it based the jet costs on the Pentagon's hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip. The documents don't give exact cost calculations, which is typical for presidential and first family trips.

The White House this afternoon disputed the costs calculated by Judicial Watch. "The number stated is misconstrued and out of context. The hourly rate is not the marginal cost of operation the plane - it is an accounting figure that prices in a number of fixed costs from maintaining the Air Force fleet for this kind of plane over a year," said an official. "For example, it includes estimated replacement parts, depreciation, repairs, and costs that would have been incurred regardless of this flight. Also, for security reasons Mrs. Obama must fly on military aircraft." Also, during her good-will mission, the first lady attended five to seven official events daily.

Obama is like many first ladies, spending summers traveling on good-will missions, sometimes with family and friends. On the June trip, during which she was accompanied by her daughters and mother, the first lady urged young people to engage with their governments and she pushed her education and wellness agenda. They also took a safari in South Africa, well known for its beautiful Lion King-like settings.

The costs of the trips have often won media scorn, as did her trip to Spain the previous summer.

But presidential experts say that the value of first lady visits is priceless, especially in cases like Obama's to Africa where the first family has special ties and where the president has been pursuing a personal agenda, especially in Kenya, the home of his father.

Here is a link to the Judicial Watch files and their release:

Charges for the Aircraft and Crew Alone Amount to $424,142

Contact Information:

Washington, DC -- October 4, 2011

Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained mission expense records and passenger manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by First Lady Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Air Force (No. 11-1496)). Judicial Watch is investigating the purpose and itinerary of the trip as well as a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.

On June 28, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings, transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama's Africa trip. Documents were only provided after Judicial Watch filed suit:

• According to U.S. Department of Defense's published hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip, Judicial Watch calculated the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for use of the aircraft (34.8 flight hours x $12,188 per hour). (The C-32 is a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses - meals (off the plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. - have yet to be disclosed.

• The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama's daughter's, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as "Senior Staff." The manifests also list Mrs. Obama's mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama's makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright).

• The expense records also show $928.44 was spent for "bulk food" purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21 passengers on board.

The professed purpose of Michelle Obama's trip to South Africa and Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues.

The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as "surreal." The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned to Washington on June 27.

"This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information."

Previously, Judicial Watch uncovered that the First Couple's 2009 "date night" trip to New York for dinner and a Broadway show cost taxpayers over $11,000 in Secret Service costs alone.

Poor war criminal.

http://www.project.nsearch.com/video/obama-the-most-pro-war-president-in-history-1 

Sunday was the 28th golf outing of the year for Obama and the 86th of his presidency.

Well obviously there are no issues that warrant his level of expertise.

With all that golf, he still has the same handicap...









Republicans!

For all of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress’s authority to draft the nation’s laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign’s legal advisers cautioned against a President who would “take the law into his own hands and shred it when it’s convenient,” Obama has done just that time and time again.

The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives.

1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for “carbon credits” that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission—despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.

2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.

But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the “card check” provision from the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.

The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.

3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.

But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama’s Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.

4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama’s Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.

The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.

5. Regulating the Internet: Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court’s ruling, the FCC voted 3–2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.

More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.

Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.

Following the November elections, when President Obama’s party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can’t legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration’s modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama’s agenda, the President’s bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.

And now this!

http://m.examiner.com/examiner/pm_60972/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bFb1gyiw 



Can you say "cover your azz!"

Special Michelle Hawaii Flight Would Cost Thousands
by Keith Koffler on December 8, 2011, 7:29 am

President Obama’s decision to send Michelle and his daughters to Hawaii ahead of him if he is delayed by a fight with Congress could cost taxpayers tens of thousands of extra dollars to fund two separate vacation flights and related costs. The move would also violate the intent of an executive order he issued just last month urging federal employees to cut back on expenses like travel.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that Obama told Senate Democratic leaders during a White House meeting that he would delay his scheduled December 17 departure for Hawaii to keep Congress in town until it extends the payroll tax holiday. Said Reid:

I’ll paraphrase it, but I’m pretty close. He said, ‘Michelle and the girls are going to have a great time in Hawaii. They don’t need me there.’

But sending his family ahead of him could easily cost taxpayers an added $100,000, and possibly much more.

Last year, when Obama was delayed by Congress, Michelle left early for Hawaii, and the cost of her separate flight alone totaled about $63,000. This did not include related security and staff costs or the money for a cargo plane that may trail the first lady’s jet on such a trip.

Obama joined Michelle a few days after she landed in Hawaii, and they extended their vacation past their scheduled return date to make up for the president’s lost vacation time.

Sending Michelle to Hawaii ahead of him this year would provide the first lady a convenience that Obama himself is trying to deny government workers.

In an executive order issued Nov. 9 titled “promoting efficient spending,” which was touted by the White House as a sign of Obama’s commitment to cut the deficit, Obama instructed agencies to try to avoid unnecessary plane trips.

. . . to ensure efficient travel spending, agencies are encouraged to devise strategic alternatives to Government travel, including local or technological alternatives, such as teleconferencing and video conferencing. Agencies should make all appropriate efforts to conduct business and host or sponsor conferences in space controlled by the Federal Government, wherever practicable and cost effective.

Perhaps a nice “strategic alternative” for the first lady would be to cool her heels at the lovely Camp David, just a short chopper ride from the White House.



http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/12/08/separate-michelle-hawaii-flight-cost-thousands/