President Obama: Distractor-in-Chief

Last week, President Obama issued an executive order that would prevent deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of 30. Not only is this a grasp of unconstitutional power, it is a politically motivated, not a pure policy motivated decision. In the first nearly two years of his presidency, President Obama had a Democratically controlled House and a filabuster proof Senate until early 2010. He had every opportunity to push through immigration reform, but didn't. Now, he has chosen to circumvent Congress and legislate from the executive branch in order to pander to a voting bloc. However, it is more than just pandering; it is distraction, just has been nearly every politically motivated decision he has made. While the economy remains in the toilet, people become distracted by President Obama's newest shiny voting bloc du jour. It has become a pattern--both for the President and those of us who vehemently oppose his policies and approach.

Class warfare has been a part of President Obama's rhetoric throughout his political career. However, it has ramped up as the election has drawn nearer. There was his "Kansas speech" which focused on income inequality and the rich paying their "fair share", but nothing in his speech provided economic empowerment for the middle class he purports to stand with. Instead, he aimed to breed envy by pitting the wealthy against the middle class. Just as in his proposed "Buffet rule", there was nothing that lowered Buffet's secretaries taxes, only ideas that would raise Buffet's taxes, which does extremely little for denting the deficit. While President Obama attempted to divide Americans into classes--a distraction--there was still nothing that would have provided more job opportunities, empowered the middle class by allowing them to keep more of what they earn, nor reduced the deficit. It was yet another political distraction.

Earlier this year, President Obama pounced on a poorly worded comment from Rush Limbaugh to fabricate a political meme of a Republican "war on women" when Republicans advocated for religious freedom for Catholic employers. Instead of focusing on economic empowerment of women by aiming to improve the economy, he again aimed to distract by turning those who supported contraceptive mandates against those who did not.He tried (and failed) to show how his policies would support women through the character of "Julia", who really wasn't economically empowered, but instead was government dependent. Meanwhile, the economy still suffered, and President Obama continued to try to distract using divisive issues.

He has done this with other demographic groups as well.  Obama has flip flopped on his views on gay marriage throughout his political career, yet at a time when 1 in 6 of his big donors are gay and following a mistimed statement by VP Biden, he felt the need to "evolve" yet again.  Again, another attempt to distract from a poor economy and pander to a voting bloc. He continues to push for student loan rate reductions in order to distract from a poor economy and pander to young voters. However, the rate reduction would only reduce monthly payments by an average of  just $7 a month. Also, with a poor economy, what jobs will these graduates have the opportunity to apply for or receive? Again, distraction.

President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term has instead increased the deficit dramatically. Also, as I noted in a previous post at Breitbart:

Additionally, his $862 billion stimulus package passed in January of 2009, which his administration claimed would prevent unemployment from going over 8%, has left a record of  39 straight months of unemployment over 8% in its wake. Fifty-six percent of likely voters want Obamacare—the President’s signature piece of legislation—repealed. Solyndra? Lightsquared? Both are now bankrupt companies with campaign donor ties to President Obama that received either loads of taxpayer dollars or preferential treatment from the Obama administration. Fast and Furious? A gun walking scheme that has left a border patrol agent dead, more than a thousand guns missing, and the Obama administration culpable.

 All of those issues are just a small sampling of his administration's failures. It isn't any wonder that he wants to distract and pander. He has lost an advantage is those voting blocs he won in 2008. He wants to distract and divide because if the electorate is focused on our differences, then we can't be focused on the poor economy and unethical government that affect us all.  The socially charged issues the President brings up are indeed important, but they are a solely political means to an electoral end for this President. Distraction. With any policy, the policy itself must be the ends, not the means for for political expediency. The economy is bad for both citizens and illegal immigrants,rich or middle class, Catholic and non-Catholic, male and female, recent graduate or non-recent graduate, married or single, gay or straight. Don't buy into the the divisive distraction.

Crossposted here and here.

IL-9: The Clear Difference between Joel Pollak and Jan Schakowsky

Joel Pollak is the Republican candidate for the Congress in Illinois' 9th district. The differences between him and his opponent corrupt Democrat, Jan Schakowsky, couldn't be more clear. For example, Schakowsky believes that only the government can end the recession, where Pollak believes the free market is necessary:

Q: Is there a role for the federal government in determining what kind of economy we should have?
Schakowsky: Only the federal government can spur sufficient demand to end a recession; the Recovery Act stopped the current recession from becoming another Great Depression. The Wall Street reform law set rules to prevent the recklessness that cost 8 million jobs and created the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to prevent a recurrence. And the federal government also supports essential parts of our economy including public schools, fire and police protection, defense, Social Security and Medicare.

Pollak: We have a free market, capitalist economy. The federal government’s role is to enforce the law, uphold contracts, and help those in dire need. Under both Bush and Obama, we have seen the federal government expand its control of our economy. That is bad for jobs, bad for opportunity, and bad for freedom. The last thing we need are politicians who live on taxpayers’ money telling us what to buy, where to work and whom to hire.

Additionally, the New York Times is reporting that the candidates' stances on Israel are becoming a campaign issue for both of these Jewish candidates. Although Schakowsky's record is reasonably pro-Israel, the New York Times reports two interesting pieces of information: President Obama's decreasing approval among the Jewish community and Schakowsky's association with J-Street:

While political analysts regard Mrs. Schakowsky’s seat as safe, Mr. Pollak’s Israel-centric campaign has made for one of the tightest races in the Ninth District in the last 50 years. She considers it a trumped-up wedge issue, but is not ignoring Mr. Pollak’s criticism.

She conceded that her contest is “exemplary of some of the tension within the community,” largely over whether President Obama’s policies have been sufficiently supportive of Israel.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Schakowsky have been criticized by some Jews for their connections to the left-leaning Jewish organization J Street, which describes itself as strongly pro-Israel but believes that Israeli government policies should not be exempt from criticism.

The Pollak campaign reports that Schakowsky raised campaign funds at an event with noted anti-Semite,Helen Thomas. Schakowsky states she did not know of Thomas's views, but has yet to return any funds raised at that event. Additionally, Schakowsky has expressed support for CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) which does not seem congruent with a self-professed support for Israel, nor her voting record.

As the New York Times states, this race is stated to be a safe Democratic seat although it's a lot closer race than in decades. Internal polling by the Pollak campaign shows that Schakowsky has fallen below48% meaning that with a little more than two weeks until the election, anything can happen.

Crossposted here.