State of the Union Peachy Cartoon

Obama undermines Hillary Clinton in State of the Union address

Is President Obama trying to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run? That’s one take-away from his feisty State of the Union address, in which Mr. Obama did three things: first, he moved the Democratic agenda far to the left, where Hillary is not entirely comfortable; second, he rebuffed the clear preference of voters that he work with Congress, by making the cornerstone of his address proposals unacceptable to the GOP and third, he assured the country that our foreign policy (Hillary’s foreign policy) is working. 
Americans are not at all convinced, 13 days after the vicious attacks on Charlie Hedbo in Paris, that Obama’s “broader strategy” is leading to “a safer, more prosperous world.”  Obama says he believes in a “smarter kind of American leadership”; for many in the country, the assertion borders on arrogance.
None of these messages works for Hillary.

Hillary is a successful, wealthy woman who pretends otherwise and stubs her toe on money issues, such as when she described herself and her husband as “dead broke” upon leaving the White House.

Mr. Obama’s focus on the middle class is unsurprising. Lagging income growth for the average American has emerged as the likely debate in 2016, for good reason. The numbers show that during the Obama recovery, the middle class has, as Joe Biden put it, been “left behind.”
The issue is valid; Mr. Obama’s progressive approach to helping average Americans – relying on more taxation and more government programs -- is not. 
Despite Americans listing job creation as their number one concern for the past six years, putting people to work has never been President Obama’s priority. He has not encouraged businesses to hire, either through reducing tax rates on employers or by expanding business opportunities – through trade, or reduced regulations, for instance.
On the contrary, his economic prescriptions have raised costs for employers through the onerous provisions of Obamacare and his efforts to raise the minimum wage. 
As of this SOTU address, he has doubled down, since many of the suggested tax hikes will land on small companies that pay taxes as individuals, and as his proposed sick pay and maternity leave will raise the costs of hiring. Such policies have led to labor participation rates that are still bumping along historical lows, a crisis in our disability program, and stagnant wages. A short course in economics might help the White House: a tighter jobs market will raise wages. The government raising wages will put people out of work. It’s that simple.
Obama revisited his familiar theme of making sure all Americans have a “fair shot”; he wants to raise taxes to make sure the rich do “their fair share.” He has never laid out what that share should be, but he has tried hard to convince Americans that the wealthy don’t play “by the same set of rules.”  
It’s a tired song, and Americans have never bought the program. 
A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 60% of Americans think the country is “fair” and “decent.” They don’t believe that income distribution is the answer. They believe in growth, in optimism, in everyone getting ahead.
The tax proposals outlined by President Obama are old school, and dead on arrival in the Republican Congress, as he well knows. Congress has indicated an eagerness to work with the president on tax reform, but has prioritized changing the dysfunctional corporate tax code. 
The president understands that by placing individual tax hikes first in the queue, he has just undermined any chance for bipartisan agreement. And, by adopting the priorities of the left, which emphasize wealth redistribution and also embrace further exploiting the financial sector, he is drafting behind liberal icon Senator Elizabeth Warren.
This is a slap at Hillary, for two reasons. First, Hillary is unquestionably uncomfortable putting on a progressive cloak. 
In the fall campaigns she awkwardly mimicked Liz Warren’s rhetoric, embarrassing herself with the head-scratcher “Don’t let anyone tell you that it’s businesses and corporations that create jobs.” 
Hillary is a successful, wealthy woman who pretends otherwise and stubs her toe on money issues, such as when she described herself and her husband as “dead broke” upon leaving the White House. Also, Hillary has difficulty distancing herself from Wall Street; the Wall Street Journal has reported that she and her husband have raised nearly $5 million from Goldman Sachs alone.  
It’s also awkward for Mrs. Clinton that the president has burned relations with Republicans…again. In his speech, while talking about “A better politics” in which “we debate without demonizing each other,” the president also threatened to veto a number of GOP initiatives.  
Voters have shown they want the government to function – to repair our infrastructure, reform our dreadful tax code, to compete more effectively with our trading rivals, to streamline our outdated government agencies. 
For six years Mr. Obama has blamed the GOP for standing in the way of his programs; now he will be the obstructer-in-chief. From his State of the Union address, it is clear that he is not interested in partnering with Republicans. His aggressive executive actions over the past several weeks on preventing deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants and unilaterally overhauling our Cuba policy were the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Obama is not into compromise.  
Voters do not like the president’s “go it alone” program; they understand why the nation’s founders included those pesky checks and balances. Obama will make it more difficult for any Democrat trying to succeed him to convince voters that he or she will “work across the aisle” – a claim that Hillary might actually credibly make. 
Finally, Obama’s insufficient resolve against the threat of Islamic terrorism, and conviction that his efforts overseas are bearing fruit, are alarming.  Like Muggles fearful of naming the fearsome Voldemort, Obama seems to think if he just doesn’t say “Islamic terrorism” out loud, the menace will pass him by. 
His embarrassing absence in Paris, his waffle on Syria, his underestimation of ISIS – it all speaks to his pretense that we have won the War on Terror. 
That our president can be so misled and so misleading on a matter of such grave importance is horrifying. That Hillary Clinton was the enabler of his clueless foreign policy is a serious problem for the former first lady. And, for the country, should she be elected.

Dems praise Obama's economic proposals while Republicans call him 'out of touch'

Democrats praised President Obama for the aggressive economic proposals in his State of Union address to help the middle class, while Republicans dismissed the president as continuously "out of touch" and suggested his agenda is doomed in Congress. 
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a potential 2016 candidate, said he was disappointed in Obama's speech, considering voters in November overwhelmingly rejected his policies along with those of other Democrats.
"He could ... be focusing on jobs and economic opportunity," Cruz said on Fox News' "The Kelley File." "But instead he doubled down on taxes and spending. I was really disappointed."
Cruz said he was pleased to see the president interested in bipartisan efforts to pass free-trade legislation but disappointed to hear him mention a veto threat at least four times, particularly on Iran sanctions and the Keystone XL oil pipeline, each of which has support from Democrats and Republicans. 
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said, "Tonight President Obama sent one resounding message: He remains wholly out of touch with the priorities of the American people." 
He suggested that Obama, in his roughly 60-minute address, focused too much on recent economic gains as a means to support a tax-and-spend agenda before addressing plans to thwart terrorism abroad and on American soil.
The Republican response was expected since Obama and the White House over the past several weeks have signaled what the president would propose -- particularly the plan to tax the country’s highest wage-earners to pay for middle-class tax break.
Democrats praised Obama for putting forth what they called a bold agenda, which comes amid his recent surge in popularity, after months of low approval ratings and Democrats suffering big losses in the November elections.
"Under President Obama’s leadership, we ... restored an emphasis on middle class economics," said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "Now ... we need to ensure that middle-class families have their shot at the American dream."
Obama in his pitch to help the middle-class argued his polices helped the United States out of an economic recession and that the country's unemployment rate is now below where it was before the recession, which started roughly seven years ago.
"The president made it clear he is on the side of the middle class," said Hawaii Democratic Rep. Mazie Hirono. "The president’s forward-thinking initiative to fund two years of community college will be a game changer for families I’ve met in Hawaii and across the country. ... Tonight the president laid out how we must invest in our middle class families, which means investing in our infrastructure."
But Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., who delivered the Tea Party response, said, "further burdening the American economy with even higher taxes is wrong, just as more debt and more unfunded programs are wrong,".
In the days before the speech, Republicans dismissed the plan as a “non-starter,” particularly in the GOP-led Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a potential 2016 presidential candidate, struck a more conciliatory tone after the address, saying, "I’ll work with the president, Democrats, Independents and anyone who wants to get people back to work and alleviate poverty in our country."
However, he added, “We need real jobs created in the real world, not more empty government promises.”
Obama said during his address, his sixth, that he would deliver his full fiscal 2016 budget to Congress in two weeks.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another potential 2016 White House candidate, questioned Obama's sincerity when championing his economic record, saying he takes credit for the country's recent prosperity while wages remain stagnant and the unemployment rate for blacks remains twice that of most other Americans.
He also criticized what he called Obama's tax-and-spend policies.
"I heard a lot about free stuff," he said on "The Kelley File." "But I didn't hear much about how we're going to pay for it. ... I have to wonder about the guy's sincerity."

Republican response: GOP Congress ready to champion middle class

Sen. Joni Ernst hammered home the idea of a new Republican Congress ready to champion the middle class in America as well as go after terrorists abroad in the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.
In contrast to Obama's optimistic tone on the economy, Ernst spoke of the struggle that still exists.
“Americans have been hurting,” she said, and cited concerns over stagnant wages, lost jobs and higher monthly insurance bills.
The freshman senator from Iowa, with less than a month of experience, in Washington, told Americans during her 9-minute rebuttal that the GOP is “working hard to pass the kind of serious job-creation ideas you deserve” that she said includes building the controversial Keystone pipeline.
Ernst also said Republicans will prioritize American concerns and called on Obama to work with her party to simplify the tax code by lowering rates and eliminating unspecified loopholes. She also called on him to ease trade barriers with Europe and Asia.
Obama, who gave the annual speech before a Republican-controlled Congress, focused on the state of the economy and its impact on the middle class. He also took on climate change, cyber threats and terrorism abroad.
Ernst also cited the recent terror attacks in France, Nigeria, Canada and Australia in her rebuttal and said lawmakers need to come up with a “comprehensive plan” to defeat terror groups like  Al Qaeda and the Islamic State as well as those radicalized by them.
“We know threats like these can’t just be wished away,” she said. 
Ernst, a former colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, won one of the toughest election challenges last year, beating Democrat Bruce Braley. She is the first woman elected to the office from Iowa and the first combat veteran to serve in the Senate. 
Ernst has served 21 years between the Army Reserve and National Guard. She spent 14 months in Kuwait in 2002-2003 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a nod to her military roots, she wore camouflage pumps.
She also said veterans deserve better care and “nothing less than the benefits they were promised and a quality of care we can all be proud of.”
Ernst, who ran on a promise of bringing change to Washington as well as an attention-grabbing campaign ad where she said she “grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm” and vowed to cut the pork in Washington if elected, said lawmakers have too often “responded with the same stale mindset that led to failed policies like ObamaCare.”
“It’s a mindset that gave us political talking points, not serious solutions,” she added.
But not everyone bought Ernst’s message. 
Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, said  it was Republicans who are blocking efforts to pass legislation in Washington.  
“Ernst decried ‘stagnant wages and lost jobs’ but made no apologies for her fellow Republicans in Congress who have blocked all Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage, to create millions of jobs rebuilding America’s crumbling roads and bridges, and to stop rewarding corporations that outsource U.S. jobs with tax breaks,” he said in a written statement. 
Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., delivered the official Tea Party response to Obama’s State of the Union speech from the National Press Club in D.C.
Clawson, who won a special election seven months ago by marketing himself as “the outsider for Congress,” drew on his strong conservative grassroots base during his response. He stressed that people were key to achieving the American dream, not the government. 
Florida freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo delivered the Republicans’ Spanish-language response.

Obama pushes tax plan, wields veto pen in defiant State of the Union address

King Obama

A defiant President Obama staked out a populist agenda Tuesday night for his final two years in office built on what he called “middle-class economics,” while using his sixth State of the Union address to deliver a slew of veto threats challenging the new, Republican-led Congress.
Setting a combative tone with Capitol Hill’s GOP leadership, Obama trumpeted a plan centered on free higher education, new worker protections and a sweeping tax overhaul that hikes rates on top earners to fund credits for the middle class. Far from chastened by Republican gains in the midterm elections, he vowed to defend signature accomplishments from his first six years in office.
“Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work, as long as politics don't get in the way,” Obama said.
Throughout, Obama hammered the message that the economy, and the country, are bouncing back after the recession and two protracted wars.
“Tonight, we turn the page,” Obama declared, claiming: “The shadow of crisis has passed.”
The address reflected a president disinclined to cede ground in the wake of his party’s midterm losses. While urging lawmakers to join him in pursuing a “better politics” in Washington, the president repeatedly antagonized congressional Republicans. He sprinkled his address with jabs at the “superrich” and the Keystone XL pipeline, and vowed to fight GOP bills that would chip away at ObamaCare, financial regulations and his recent immigration actions.
“If a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it,” Obama said. He issued similar threats with regard to legislation teeing up new Iran sanctions and efforts to roll back environmental regulations.
In an off-script moment, the president even reminded Republicans of his electoral successes. After declaring he had no more campaigns to run, he quipped, “I know because I won both of them.”
Obama, in his address, was promoting a series of programs he previewed in the weeks leading up to it.
Most controversial is a plan unveiled over the weekend imposing more than $300 billion in tax hikes over 10 years – including on investment and inheritance taxes for top earners – to fund tax credit expansions for the middle class, including tripling the maximum child tax credit to up to $3,000 per child. The funding also would pay for an initiative providing free community college for two years for students who keep up their grades (though the White House calls for rolling back a separate college savings tax break).
Referring to long-established entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, Obama said “middle-class economics” helps everyone get a “fair shot” when everyone “does their fair share.”
With that pitch, Obama also called anew for Congress to raise the minimum wage. And he called for new measures to guarantee paid sick leave for American workers.
On his college plan, the president said he wants to make two years of community college “as free and universal in America as high school is today.”
While Republicans have questioned the mechanics of the college plan, they have declared his tax proposal a “non-starter” in the new GOP-led Congress.
House Speaker John Boehner described the president’s wish-list Tuesday as “more of the same” and said his approach is hurting, not helping, the middle class.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement that the address showed Obama slipping back into his role as “campaigner-in-chief,” pushing higher taxes and more regulations, while issuing “premature veto threats.”
In a pointed swipe sure to anger Republicans, Obama in his address downplayed the jobs impact of the proposed Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline, without mentioning it by name. Calling for more infrastructure spending, he said: “Let's set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let's pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year.”
Defending his tax plan, Obama said lobbyists have “rigged” the system with loopholes and giveaways “that the superrich don't need, while denying a break to middle class families who do.”
He called for closing them “to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college.”
Yet the president, as part of his tax plan, is calling for ending a tax break for college savings plans known as 529 plans. Under the change, earnings on contributions could not be withdrawn tax-free, as they can be now.
The speech was dominated by economic and domestic issues, though the president did devote several minutes to addressing terrorism and specifically the threat posed by the Islamic State.
After the recent terror attack in Paris, he said “we stand united” with victims of terrorists.
“We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we have done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies,” he vowed.
On ISIS, though some lawmakers have criticized his current approach, he claimed the current campaign in Iraq and Syria is “stopping ISIL’s advance.” Though airstrikes have been underway for months, he urged Congress to formally authorize the use of force.
And on Cuba, he defended his recent decision to push for normalizing relations with the country. Despite concerns among some lawmakers in Congress that the Castro regime may exploit the opening to its advantage, Obama urged Congress to “begin the work of ending the embargo.”  
The speech was Obama’s first State of the Union before a Congress controlled by Republicans. The party won control of the Senate and built a historic majority in the House in November.
Yet Obama has made clear he plans to play “offense” in his final two years, and his speech Tuesday set the stage for that political and legislative battle.
Both Republicans and Democrats are appealing to middle-class voters as they begin the new Congress. But Obama’s State of the Union address, thematically, promoted federal government protections and programs as key to their security, where Republicans are making a flat pitch for private-sector job creation.
Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged the president to look beyond “more tired tax hikes,” and instead strive for “responsible reforms that aim to balance the budget.”
He also sounded a middle-class message, but urged the president to boost workers with bipartisan jobs bills, including by backing efforts to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who was elected in November to an open Iowa seat, delivered the official Republican response to Obama Tuesday night. The senator presented a markedly different picture of the economy, where Americans “agonize over stagnant wages and lost jobs.”
On the tax front, Ernst called for simplifying America’s “outdated and loophole-ridden tax code” – not to finance more spending but improve the economy.
“So let’s iron out loopholes to lower rates — and create jobs, not pay for more government spending,” she said. “The president has already expressed some support for these kinds of ideas. We’re calling on him now to cooperate to pass them.”

Taken 4 Cartoon

Hollywood stars smear 'American Sniper,' label Kyle a coward, Nazi

While Americans embrace "American Sniper," some in Hollywood are condemning the film – accusing director Clint Eastwood of "celebrating a killer."
Fox News' Todd Starnes sounded off Monday on filmmaker Michael Moore and actor Seth Rogen, who both spoke unfavorably of the film celebrating the life of Navy Seal Chris Kyle.
"Michael Moore tweeted that snipers like Chris Kyle are cowards. Seth Rogen - who made his mark with movies about sexually frustrated pot heads - compared Kyle's bio-pic to a Nazi propaganda film," Starnes said. "Here is the sum and substance, folks.  Chris Kyle killed bad guys so that good guys could live."

Study used to bolster NY fracking ban developed by anti-fracking 'activists'

New York state’s controversial new fracking ban was bolstered in part by research written and peer-reviewed by scientists with ties to the anti-fracking movement – drawing criticism that their views were not disclosed when the ban was announced last month.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration made New York the second state, after Vermont, to ban the oil-and-gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking.
At the time of the announcement, Acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker cited a study published in Environmental Health in October 2014 that warned about “concentrations of volatile compounds” near these drilling sites. He noted the paper, which he included in a presentation, showed “elevated levels of eight different chemicals” in air samples – he said despite some weaknesses in the report, the issue deserves “further study.”
The study also was cited along with several others in a broader state report, “A Public Health Review of High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Development,” released in December. That report concluded that, because of uncertainties over the health and environmental impacts of fracking, the practice “should not proceed” in New York.
When the governor announced the ban on Dec. 17, he said: "I think it’s our responsibility to develop an alternative … for safe, clean economic development.”
But Simon Lomax -- western director for Energy In-Depth, a public outreach campaign funded by the pro-fracking Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) – complained that the October study was both written and peer-reviewed by “activists.”
He said this wasn't disclosed. “As advocates, these people are perfectly entitled to their political views, as we all are under the First Amendment,” he told FoxNews.com. “But when advocates hide their political views and subvert the peer-review process to get a questionable research paper published, that violates all kinds of scientific standards.” 
One of the three peer-reviewers is Sandra Steingraber, a biologist and environmental advocate who is also co-founder of New Yorkers Against Fracking. Two others, Robert Oswald and Jerome Paulson, are vocal opponents. Several of the study's authors, though not all, are known fracking skeptics and have ties to groups that oppose the practice -- including Denny Larson, study co-author and director of Global Community Monitor, which is sharply critical of fracking. 
Reached by FoxNews.com, Steingraber and Oswald said they did not disclose their positions because they have taken no money from the movement. Further, they do not work directly with any of the authors or have academic relationships with them. As scientists, they said, they have found evidence that fracking creates health hazards, and it is their professional and ethical obligation to speak out about it.
“You can’t be neutral when people are being harmed,” said Steingraber. “That’s like telling people who did studies on the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke to be neutral about smoking.”
Steingraber was arrested for civil disobedience in October during an ongoing protest over the storage of natural and liquefied petroleum gases in the salt caverns at Seneca Lake in New York.
“I am speaking out precisely because of the evidence – the evidence is driving our conclusions and it my moral obligation as a biologist to make sure people are kept out of harm’s way,” she added. As for her ability to review studies like the one in Environmental Health, she said, “I think we are all proud of our ability to be conservative and analytical and absolutely objective about the data. I look at the data and call it as I see it.” 
But Lomax said the validity of the science is called into question when peer-reviewers may be predisposed to a certain outcome. “It’s not sound science,” he said.
He noted the journal’s own editorial standards are clear on disclosing “non-financial competing interests.” The journal says it adheres to the standards set forth by Bio Med Central. Those say authors should not only disclose financial interests but also “political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests.”
Though Lomax is tied to the oil-and-gas industry, he said, “I know the difference between a good, fair effort towards advancing the scientific knowledge of the subject matter and activists who write their own talking points and misrepresent that as science.” 
Calls and emails to the Cuomo’s office and the state Department of Health were not returned.
Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell University, who has written extensively on the dangers of fracking, is an admitted opponent and also peer-reviewed the study. He told FoxNews.com he did not believe he needed to disclose his positions beforehand.
“What Lomax said is absolute and complete nonsense – anybody who has the expertise to review a paper has some opinion on the subject,” he said. “I’ve reviewed thousands of papers and I always have some sort of opinion of the area, but it does not really stand in the way of my objective view.”
In New York, the target area for possible oil extraction is on the border with Pennsylvania, in the Marcellus Shale region. Supporters like the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York opposed the ban because they believed the drilling would have brought jobs to an economically depressed area.
"The science that [officials with the state health department] did is junk science,” Dan Fitzsimmons, president of the Landowners Coalition, said in a rally after Cuomo’s decision to ban. "It was all about what may be, what might be, what could be. It wasn't the actual science of the day."
He told FoxNews.com he does not believe the public knows about the interwoven connections between the authors and reviewers and activist groups that are often behind the studies.
“They do the studies to get the results they want,” he said. “They are not going to be objective, they have an agenda.”