New Assertiveness By Barack Obama A Great Development!

President Barack Obama is not allowing obstructionist Republicans and conservatives to stop him in his determination to use his Presidential authority to bring about necessary change and social justice.

So Obama is declaring new national parks to add to the legacy of our environment, and prevent exploitation by private industry that would lead to mining and other destructive activities that undermine nature, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did when they were in the White House.

Obama is also moving to force many corporations, which have been skirting the rules on pay, to make them fork up overtime pay to workers who deserve it, but have been denied it by manipulative companies wishing to cheat them of their deserved compensation.

Obama has also taken action to promote a better future for young people, including working to convince them that they need to sign up for ObamaCare, as they are not immune from injury and illness, although young people tend to think they are indestructible, and do not understand that one illness or accident could put them into a total negative credit situation long term.

And Obama is trying to provide hope and opportunity for a particularly endangered species, young black males, who have had a far greater likelihood of a life cut short by violence, a life more likely to lead to prison and drug addiction, but lives that can be turned around by appropriate intervention by those who value every person as one who should be given equal chance for success and happiness.

This is the kind of President we need, one who cares about us, not about powerful, wealthy interests, who are never satisfied, no matter how much wealth and power they already have! This is a country and government of, by and for the people, not just the elite, powerful, and wealthy!

14 comments on “New Assertiveness By Barack Obama A Great Development!

  1. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 2:03 pm

    I have often times wondered how any American can be confused about who is actually looking out for them when you have Obama trying to push health care and people like Palin making corny and honestly skin crawling speech’s like the one she did a few days ago about Obama care.

    Not even a smart speech either since she choose to paraphrase green eggs and ham somewhat forgetting likely that in the end Sam I am tried the green eggs and ham and liked them.

    The tonight show poked fun at her though, really funny starts at 1:26

  2. Ronald March 12, 2014 2:09 pm

    Ali, thanks for coming back to comment on the blog! I do NOT understand how the American people cannot see that Obama is there for them, unlike Sarah and other Republicans. It makes one wonder about the common sense, or lack of it, of so many, who simply will not accept ObamaCare because he promoted what had been a Heritage Foundation–Bob Dole-Newt Gingrich plan in 1993 to oppose HillaryCare, much more advanced than ObamaCare!

  3. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 2:15 pm

    It’s gotten to the point that I couldn’t name a single respectable Republican, or if there are any they too busy hiding under their beds waiting for someone to bring their backbone back to them. What I find most disturbing is republicans complain their lies about Obama not being Presidential enough and in the same breath accuse him of being too presidential by issuing all these executive orders.

  4. Ronald March 12, 2014 2:25 pm

    Yes, Ali, you are correct, how they contradict themselves constantly about Obama, and how any sane person cannot see through their lies and deceit, is beyond understanding! In my mind, ONLY Jon Huntsman has any validity, but he would never be the GOP nominee for President, and being out of office, and having worked for Obama as Ambassador to China, makes him insignificant in today’s crazy political climate!

  5. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 2:32 pm

    I almost want to celebrate that as of this moment there doesn’t seem to be a likely candidate in their entire party that could even seriously attempt to win in 2016. Almost if not for the fact I feel it makes it too easy for anyone who gets the nomination from the democrats to win. When you have two legitimate candidates running in the general election I feel as if that sort of tests out who would be the better person for the job or at the very least gives both good experience at the pressure they might face later on regardless of who wins. Like with Mitt Romney he obviously couldn’t handle himself in tense situations and that showed transparently. If the election was held today the Democrats nominee could almost sit back and let the Republican beat themselves.

  6. Ronald March 12, 2014 2:44 pm

    As I have written in earlier blog entries, I think ANY Democrat will win the Presidency in 2016, not only Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I see no way for the GOP to win 270 electoral votes, as the Democrats are quite guaranteed to win 257, as I point out in an earlier blog entry you can search for, and only five states are really seen as in play and all that the Democrats need is one large state such as Floria or Ohio, or two small states, such as Iowa and Colorado.

  7. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 2:56 pm

    Speaking of Hillary and Joe who I both like mind you, I’d much rather prefer they both step aside and let someone younger run. I mean that would get pretty ugly really fast if they both tried to get the nomination and I somewhat feel both of them are a bit too old to be around for potentially 8 more years in a job that already ages you well beyond that.

    Specifically with Hillary who has said she had no plans to run and regardless of if she actually ever meant that or not (I doubt it), I don’t think she should run JUST to be the first female president. I can’t help but feel a good chunk of people “excited” for her to run could not care less about anything she would actually say or do. I mean if she has actual ideas and wants to go for that route that is one thing, but in all honesty would that really be why she is doing it? Say she does win it’s just going to be years more of even worse obstruction in my opinion because everything she says or does will be second guessed and it will be as if she has to prove something.

  8. Ronald March 12, 2014 3:05 pm

    Actually, I have written about this a number of times on this blog, that as much as I like Hillary and Joe, particularly Joe, it would be better for them to step aside and let a younger generation take over, as with JFK in 1960, Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992, and Obama in 2008.

    If they are not in the race, then whoever is the Democrat does not have to defend everything Obama did, as they are not part of the administration.

    And their ages are a major negative, particularly with the fact that the Republicans will have someone likely in their 40s or 50s and when you have a younger versus an older, the future against the past, it makes it much more difficult for the older candidate. I still believe either of them could win, but it might be taxing on their health, and make us worry about who their VP might be.

    So I totally agree with you, and why Hillary would want to spend the next decade of her life under attack and have no relaxation time, and turn down millions she could earn for speeches and books, is beyond my understanding, The same could be said for Joe, who is not a rich man, and will have given 44 years to this nation, and it is time for relaxation and family, as I see it!

  9. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 3:15 pm

    I agree though if I had to choose between the two I would still have to go with Joe as well. Most specifically because when Hillary Clinton retired as Secretary of State she looked VERY worn down and aged. Not to mention she worked herself so hard (like she had something to prove), that she injured herself and had to stop for a few weeks. That is what really concerns me because while Secretary of State is surly not an easy job being the President is almost certainly more taxing and she didn’t handle being Secretary so well in that regard in my honest opinion.

    At least with Joe, who seems full of energy even now, if he had a young reasonably capable Vice President I wouldn’t find that such a scary thought as with Hillary, whose running mate would almost certainly have to be some sort of political gimmick to get voters she couldn’t get herself.

  10. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 3:18 pm

    I feel like with Joe you would have his 44 years’ experience, the fact that he was involved with Obama as Vice President, he is still up to date and somewhat more relevant then Hillary as he is still in office, plus a new generation person in the wings as VP helping out that would be a much more attractive prospect.

  11. Ronald March 12, 2014 3:28 pm

    Look, Ali, you and I are PRECISELY on the same page, as I have raved about Joe Biden for years, and would LOVE for him to be President of the United States.

    However, he will be 74 to Hillary’s 69 in 2016, so would be 82 by end of a second term. And Joe had a life threatening aneurysm in 1987, and had to undergo two brain surgeries in that year, and his son, Beau, Attorney General of Delaware, had a similar experience two or three years ago, so it might be genetic.

    If he ran, however, a good VP would be Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, or San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, or Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. Realize that Castro, a Mexican American, will be only 42 in 2016!

  12. Ali Rahnavard March 12, 2014 3:39 pm

    I’m originally from Maryland so I won’t deny having a bias of sorts there lol Thank you for reminding me about the surgeries though I had forgotten. I guess since that wasn’t as recent as Hillary’s it just sort of slipped my mind. Do you know if anyone has ever tried to pass a bill that caps a max age for a person seeking the presidency? Jokingly I would say that the “grand old party” went senile with Regan, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn someone after or even before him tried to present an idea for a cap of some sorts.

    The 40’s seem to be a good age for someone to be as President though now that you mention Castro, though what an unfortunate name I could foresee GOP making an issue over! I always remember how Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton and now Obama all were in their early to mid-forties when they began and all accomplished some very progressive things and or were very good presidents. Perhaps the 40’s are a magic age for the presidency lol

  13. Engineer Of Knowledge March 12, 2014 6:10 pm

    Hello Professor,
    Let’s not forget the great Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who in his last days in office, created more National Parks with the stroke of his pen then ever before. In essence, he did an end run around the logging lobbyists at the time. Those who were clear cutting, plundering our Natural Treasures as if it was their birthright.

  14. Ronald March 12, 2014 6:17 pm

    You are correct, Engineer! 🙂

    Ali, while JFK, Obama, TR, and Clinton were good, along with Cleveland and Polk, on the other hand, Grant, Pierce, and Garfield (shot after four months) were not as lucky or good! LOL I wrote about the “40s” Presidents in a blog entry on August 4, 2013, Obama’s birthday, so you might want to look at it! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.