Obama Presidential News Conference Notes

Today Barack Obama held his second Presidential News Conference. More than any other president during the early part of the presidency. I think it is because he sure loves that camera.

During the news conference the questions, and his responses, focused primarily on economic issues. He seemed to be more concerned with domestic issues than anything abroad. There were no questions regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.

I was quick to notice that an American Flag lapel pin was present. . .

Early on in his speech Obama made the comment that he wished to make his presidency a change from a borrow and spend mentality. That caused a slight chuckle with me. He is not only continuing the borrow and spend habits of George W. Bush, but at a highly increased level. Nonetheless, even with the massive deficit spending, Obama likes to remind everyone he inherited this "economic mess" from the previous Administration, never acknowledging that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006, and were also a large part of the Bush Administration spending spree.

When referring to a lack of regulation of businesses, and the suffering financial situation, Obama called it, "Another symptom of the culture that brought us to our knees." What culture is he referring to? The Free Market? Americanism? Does the culture of capitalistic America offend him? I just found it strange he used the word "culture" in that context.

He then went on to say the whole reason for the economic slump was because of a lack of government authority (in other words: regulation and control). But I think it was exactly the opposite. Government regulation enforced on businesses not only encouraged these lending institutions to make bad loans, but demanded it. It is amazing how the Democrats can shift the blame, and everyone buys it.

During the question and answer period of the news conference, President Obama was asked: (paraphrased) Will you sign a budget that phases out the middle class tax cut, because it looks like this newest version does just that? He responded by indicating that he believed heavily in the budget containing healthcare reform, serious energy policies, one that invests in education, and one that starts driving deficit numbers down. Yes, notice that tax cuts are nowhere in that answer. Then, after the question was repeated to him, he said: When it comes to middle class tax cuts, they were in the recovery bill, and will be in place next two years. Cap and trade was also in the question, and he claimed it was a means of moving away from polluting energy resources to clean energy resources. What it really does is punish businesses that do not move to the less efficient energy sources Obama is demanding them to move to. It will, also, by his own admission, result in a spike in energy costs. He also claimed he didn't know the details about middle class tax cuts because he hasn’t seen budget yet. Now, if that isn't a cop-out, I don't know what is.

When he was asked in a question that while running Obama claimed he didn’t run for president to pass on problems to future generations, but that his debt being created by his policies and budget is in fact passing on problems to future generations - - - Obama first blamed Bush, once again claiming that he was given this situation, and Bush was a big spender (what part of "he is spending a hell of a lot more than Bush ever dreamed to" is he not getting?). Then Obama said that the Administration will drive down deficit in first five years. How? With that kind of spending, how is that possible? How do you drive down a deficit as you spend more than any president in the history of America - and in fact, more than all of the presidents combined?

Then, he claims ignorance, saying, "None of us knows what will happen in six years or eight years." He then placed emphasis on investments (in other words: Government Spending on infrastructure and other things he feels are investments in our future) that will create growth (growth is achieved by the private Free Market). Don't get me wrong. I understand that spending must occur on public works projects, and that roads and bridges and such don't get built without government funding. However, first of all it is too much spending all at once, and second of all the U.S. Constitution and notes by the founding fathers is explicit in explaining that the government should only fund routes if they are for the postal service, but that it is up to the States to maintain them.

However, as with most of the questions, he never really answers the question about the ever increasing deficit going up and up and up.

In regards to violence in Mexico, and if it is a National Security Threat should we send troops to the border, Obama said we are sending millions in equipment, and coordinating with the Mexican government. He then claimed that we are not seeing a spill over into the U.S. in violence. Then blames American weapons crossing the border for the violence. What? Really? First of all, the weapons are not the problem. The idiots with the weapons in their hands are. Even if there was a complete ban of weapons in the United States, the criminal element would get their hands on them. That is just a fact. Second, he is completely wrong that violence is not spilling over border. I can't count how many reports I have read of Drug War violence spilling over the border into Arizona and Texas from Mexico. Not sure about New Mexico at this point. I know of a few incidents along the California border. And, as expected, he didn't fully answer the question about militarizing the border, but I guarantee he is against sending military troops to be stationed along America's southern border.

When asked about increasing Veteran’s funding, he said that there is an increase in that funding. I am curious how long that will last. I will have to admit that I received a letter from Veteran's Affairs offering to reevaluate certain aspects of my case with the possibility of an increase. I am aware there are a number of Military Wounded with similar injuries as mine with 70% or higher on their disability rating. Mine is 30%, and I do not plan to pursue increasing it. Though I may be technically due the increase, I am able to fully function with minimal pain, and therefore would not feel right pursuing an increase where there are brothers and sisters out there with worse injuries due that money that I may take away by gaining an increase. No thanks.

When asked why Obama waited to voice his AIG outrage? He never really answered the question (surprise, surprise), but I will tell you the answer for him: Obama and the Democrats were waiting to see what the public’s response would be, then they would act accordingly in such a way as to keep the "adoration" needle buried as far in the "up" position as possible.

Because he did not answer the question, it was asked a second time. Obama said, "Because I like to know what I am talking about before I speak." Translation? See the above paragraph.

Obama was then asked about his worry regarding international opinion. After all, he brought that up often during his presidential campaign. Then, in the question, he was asked, "How do you feel about their opinion you are weakening the U.S. dollar and economy?" Once again, he didn’t answer the question - but he did say, "Somebody has to take the leadership, but not me." Right. Not you? Your arrogance betrays you on that one, Obama. Why in the hell did you visit Europe during your campaign? Because you weren't just running for President of the United States - you have global aspirations - or at least desire to be adored by the world. Just admit it, Obama, it is all about you and the power you wish to gain.

Then Obama said that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now. I about choked. Obama's policies and bailouts are essentially pumping fiat money into the economy, and that fiat money is weakening the value of the dollar rapidly.

Then he said he is restoring the world’s confidence. Legend in his own mind. Apparently he isn't reading what I am reading about the world opinion about his outrageous spending, and socialistic policies.

President Obama stated he plans to not renew Bush tax cuts (no surprise there), but his reasoning during the speech is that he wishes to do so, so that the top 5% pays more in taxes. On top of that, he has lowered the amount of charitable contributions the wealthier can write off. He believes this will not discourage charitable giving. I disagree.

Regarding the homeless, he said (and I agree) that he is heartbroken when he hears that any child is homeless. However, where I disagree is that, on their behalf, he desires that government makes sure their parents will have a job. Then, the jobs h names are government jobs (police, teachers). I really believe this guy can't stand the private sector, and feels that government should replace charities. Isn't helping the poor supposed to be a voluntary thing someone does from the goodness of their heart - Not some compulsory government mandate taken from the taxes?

He plans to be initiating programs to deal with homelessness. More spending.

Ann Compton of ABC Radio asked about race: Obama said that his number one priority is trying to fix the economy. In other words, race is not an issue (and it shouldn't be - his color means nothing to me - it is all about his policies, and doomed to fail ones at that). He said that the people that were excited about his historical election as president have justifiable pride, but that lasted about a day. Obama said, "I am being judged by if I am taking steps to improve the financial markets, create jobs, and keep America safe." I was surprised he added the last part of that, to be honest - unless he is referring to saving our economic crisis as being a means of keeping America safe.

He was asked about Embryonic Stem Cell research, and the morality surrounding the issue, especially considering the advances in Adult Stem Cell research. In fact, the advances in Adult Stem Cell research blow away the failed science of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Obama said he wrestles with these issues. He claims it is a hard issue (I don't think it is very hard - the decision is obvious - go with successful Adult Stem Cell Research not only because it is more successful, but because of the morality issues surrounding the embryonic method. Obama then claimed to have strong moral, ethical guidelines (this, coming from a person that has no problem with full term abortion and allowing botched abortions to die on the table gasping for air). He said that his ethics were especially strong in issues regarding cloning, human life sciences, and abortion (in one word: Liar). He then claimed that only embryos to be discarded should be used. These embryos should not have been created in the first place!

Obama said he was glad to see adult stem cell progress, and that he would be happy to go in that direction if it works. He added he would be happy to avoid controversy if that is where the science leads us. Thing is, that IS where the science is leading us!

When asked how realistic his hopes of peace between the Palestinians (a.k.a. anti-Israel Hamas Terrorists) and Israel were, especially given that conservative Natanyahu is now President of Israel, Obama responded, "I don’t know the future (another cop-out), so waiting to see." He then said that he wants to advance the two-state solution ". . .where they can live side by side in peace and security."

This shows his ignorance. Palestine, and any other Muslim nation in the region, have no interest in living side by side with Israel in peace in security. They desire (just read the Hamas Charter) the destruction of Israel, and for the rejected Jordanians (that is actually what Palestinian are) to inhabit Israel's territory. If a two-state solution is achieved, the Muslims will play the game for a moment, then all hell will break loose. Israel pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not stop the terrorist attacks against Israel. A two-state solution won't either. In fact, they have rejected the two-state solution in the past. Why? Because in their eyes Israel is not a state. It is a pirate state, according to them, and they will not be happy until Israel is destroyed.

Obama, however, is too blind to recognize that.

In the end, I want to repeat this about Obama. He is the only person I have ever heard of that claims you can reduce a deficit while increasing spending. Idiotic.