Obama Fail Blog

Hey, remember when NASA administrator Charles Bolden went on Al-Jazeera TV to tell the Muslim world that President Obama wants NASA's foremost mission to be a tool for reaching out to Muslims, so Islamic countries "feel good"?

Predictably, the Obama administration denied everything, claiming Bolden "misspoke." Here is Obama spokesperson - and Pee Wee Herman's nemesis - Robert "Buckston" Gibbs:



Turns out - and I do hope you are sitting down - Robert Gibbs was lying. You see, Charles Bolden didn't misspeak. Charles Bolden was telling the truth. And the truth is, President Obama wants to use NASA as a tool to help Islamic countries feel good.

The White House is disavowing a plan to have NASA conduct outreach to Muslim countries, but a congressman who talked to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about that plan last month said the initiative was very real until somebody slammed the brakes on it.

Rep. Pete Olson, ranking Republican on the Space and Aeronautics House Subcommittee, told FoxNews.com that Bolden described the outreach program as part of the administration’s space plan during a conversation they had in June.

“He confirmed it to me,” Olson said. The Texas Republican said he thinks the program existed until the “uproar” compelled the administration to rethink it.

Source: FoxNews via HotAir

We’re back to where we were before yesterday. This administration doesn’t want to spend money in space, but they do want to spend it on efforts best left to the State Department. Except now, of course, we can also factor into the equation a healthy dose of dishonesty. Instead of admitting that Obama had made a mistake, they dumped the entire blame on Bolden, who wouldn’t be appearing on Al-Jazeera in the first place without getting approval up the chain of command first.

Source: HotAir

Not only did he get his facts wrong, but he tried to ratchet up the fear and anger by bringing kids and ice cream into his faux-parable. In other words, Obama is lying (again):

President Obama said at an Iowa town hall meeting today that the controversial immigration legislation signed into law Friday could lead to racial profiling.

"You know, you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, might be illegal immigrants," he said.

The president added that a Hispanic American whose family had been in the United States for generations faced a situation in which "now suddenly if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that's something that could potentially happen."

Source: CBS News

Where does it say that anywhere in the new Arizona law? The One is using deliberately selected Gestapo-esque language, meant to fool (HA!) the nation on the actual content of the law, meant to scare and/or anger all legal Latino citizens. The AZ law mimics the 70-year-old federal law on citizenship and illegal immigration. He’s maligning the Phoenix police on a bogus hypothetical tale… correction, maligning ALL police officers in Arizona… on the insulting, groundless assumption they will happily target and harass all law-abiding American Hispanics going out for family ice cream cones with their children — the emotional kickers mixed into this lie are kids and ice cream.

What a jackass — this Alinsky/Marxist-style lie sounds like something a hateful, lying race-baiter like Rev. Al Sharpton would make up in his sleep. But it’s the president of the United States of America insulting an entire state and its police force — just when you think the Democrat party can’t sink into the pool of fecal matter any deeper, we get this.

It’s the Cambridge, Massachusetts police force nightmare — times a thousand. Obama merely called them “stupid,” whereas he’s strongly insinuating that he believes that Arizona cops are… what exactly? Racists? Rogues? Zealots? Nazis?

Source: Frugal Cafe

Surprise, surprise! Another State of the Union failure.

We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

Source: President Obama's State of the Union address

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

Source: The Hill

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.”

And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag. Some have said they understood why he used strong rhetoric on the campaign trail but are irritated the White House solicits their opinions while Obama’s friends in Congress badger them for political donations.

Source: The Hill
via The Lonely Conservative

During his State of the Union address, President Obama tried to intimidate the Supreme Court with some tough talk about their recent decision on campaign finance regulation. He failed miserably:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Source: President Obama's State of the Union address

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

Source: National Review via HotAir

Watch CBS News Videos Online

When Obama spoke to Congress about health care reform on Sept. 9, he attempted to put a human face on his push for a provision barring insurance companies from dropping patients with pre-existing medical conditions.

While not citing the person's name, the president said: "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

It's just not true, which I pointed out in my Chicago Sun-Times column. I confirmed with the White House that the man Obama was referring to was Otto Raddatz, from a Chicago suburb. His insurance company did indeed yank his coverage in April 2005. But after a fight led by his sister, Peggy, an attorney and the Illinois attorney general, Raddatz got his coverage reinstated in a few weeks and never missed any needed treatments. And he did not die until Jan. 6, 2009.