Obama slammed as ‘tone-deaf’ for golfing after comforting Foley’s parents

President Obama is facing an onslaught of criticisms — from even those on the left in his camp — for his back-to-back progression of comforting the parents of murdered U.S. journalist James Foley to teeing off at the golf course.

Mr. Obama first called Foley’s parents, John and Diane, at their New Hampshire home to offer words of comfort and relay the fact he was “heartbroken” by the beheading of their son at the hands of the Islamic State terrorists, The New York Times reported. Minutes later, Mr. Obama gave a news conference from Martha’s Vineyard, telling the nation that he would ensure “justice is done” in the attack, Newsmax reported.

Then he went on to a five-hour golf game at Farm Neck Golf Course — his seventh game in 10 days, The Washington Post reported.

41 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • mitchell says:

    Its hard to be Pres, when golf is always on your mind.The voters have to live with it.But we are use to hearing horror stories ,come from this ADMIN

  • I Seigel says:

    Here is a great webpage to explain all the false statistics and prove that Fox is right: http://liberalbias.com/post/2039/obama-takes-more-vacations-than-any-modern-president/
    Read it carefully and you’ll finally learn the truth.

    Or not.

  • CharlieSeattle says:

    Well at least Obama made an effort.

    Last weekend, I and my golf foursome were about to cross a busy road in our golf carts to go to the back nine when a long funeral procession went by.

    I got out of the cart and took off my cap and bowed as they passed by.

    My buddy then said, “That was a nice thing to do Charlie.”

    I said, “Thanks Jim, it was the least I could do. I was married to her for 33 years.”

  • Maggie De Vore says:

    This great and well-balanced, intelligent, real human being is plugged into his job 24 hours a day! How dare you kindergarten republicans ‘accuse’! Your whole ‘no’ party, ‘no’ Congress and others associated with your ilk refuse to work with him and the well-being of our great country! You whiners couldn’t hold a candle to what he has to do in one hour a day — let alone 24. He is the most powerful man on earth – and you wimps criticize?? Bad enough he has to battle the world outside the U.S. — but to have to do battle inside as well?? Grow up people — it ain’t that hard. Something called manners and respect and gratitude! Wonder what kind of ‘pressure’ job you critics hold?

    1. bookworm says:

      You are being sarcastic, right? You don’t really believe any of that bushwah, right???

      1. Maggie De Vore says:

        So, I must have used too many big words for you to engage in — i.e. loyalty, manners, respect? And you do what??

    2. desertcelt says:

      Drink deep from the coolaide well at CNN.

      1. Maggie De Vore says:

        So clever and how old are you? Am finding more and more that you folks who side with Limbaugh and FUX new simply have an aversion to growing up and choose to live in the land of lies with the other kindergarten Repubs. And you do what??

        1. bookworm says:

          You cannot possibly be on the 1776 Coalition website by accident. Therefore you must know who we are — small government, Constitutional, Reagan Republicans — and here you are purposely excusing and defending the indefensible. So, fess up: Who’s paying you to defend the socialist in the White House?

          1. Maggie De Vore says:

            At 82 I simply cannot be bought. Actually have never been!! Besides someone has to point out your childish loyalties, huh?

          2. bookworm says:

            Oh, okay — you have 20 years on me, but now I get it: You come on this site where you know you disagree with everyone and just arguing keeps your blood moving. Got it. I’m at the stage where I’m tired of arguing and know I will never change anyone’s mind, so I don’t waste my time. Keep living.

          3. Maggie De Vore says:

            Last Reply — so, not arguing – discussing with no hard feelings. You sounded about 20. My humble error!
            Living fully, quite happily and able to participate in this dialogue as a decent golfer twice a week, published author of children’s book, hypnotist, counselor, Minister and an all round good person. Living is a good option.

          4. bookworm says:

            Last reply: Childish loyalties. That would make you an FDR, socialist, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. My mother refused party identity, only paying attention to the caliber and experience of the candidates, but her older sister was like you, and my mother once said to her (surprisingly in my childhood hearing), that a Democrat could shit in her face and she’d ask for more, as long as he was a Democrat.

          5. Maggie De Vore says:

            almost last reply — sounds like your Mom and Sister has some identity issues. As so many mothers and daughters. I like your Mother — she says what she thinks. Rare!

          6. bookworm says:

            No, it wasn’t my older sister, it was my mother’s older sister. And that’s what surprised me because no one ever contradicted her sister, and my mother was letting her have it!

          7. Maggie De Vore says:

            Love her style!!

          8. bookworm says:

            God bless her, she was a pip! One of her favorites was to snort and say, “Some people just need killin’ . . . ” !!!

          9. desertcelt says:

            Golf, what an atrocious waste of a good rifle range.

          10. Swede says:

            I’m surprised you admit to an 82. However, you right fairly well for such a low IQ.

          11. I Seigel says:

            Do you actually understand what a “Reagan Republican” is? I’d like to hear it from you, so please explain.

            Also, Bookworm, let me ask you this: Do you have kids that you send (sent) to public schools? Do you drive or use public transportation? Are you on a city or municipal water or sewage system, or do you have a well and a septic system on your property? Please let me know.

          12. bookworm says:

            Smaller government — no dept of edu, 1/2 the bureaucrats — fewer regs, lower taxes, complete adherence to Constitution as written and intended, not “organic, living” – in short, the same appeal that Reagan had in 1980 that beat all the career politicians on both sides of the aisle, Kennedys and Bushes/Rockefellers. Adherence to capitalism and the idea that individuals are responsible for themselves, not the government. Try to maintain an equal playing field without trying to homogenize how children are reared and educated across the entire US; not guaranteeing any outcome.

          13. bobnstuff says:

            I live through the Reagan era, you really need to read some real history. Nothing you listed was Reagan, he increased the size of government, raised taxes, said deficit don’t matter, passed as many regulations as Obama, gave illegals a free pass and slept through cabinet meetings.

          14. bookworm says:

            I was in my 30s during the Reagan administration. I remember the horrors of running a business at 24% prime interest rate under Jimmy Carter, I remember the “Misery Index,” and, in February, 1980, I remember getting on a elevator in a swank office building and someone had scratched “nuke Iran” in the polished steel wall. Obama is Jimmy Carter redux on steroids. Carter thanks God on bended knee every day that he’s no longer the very worst president in American history.

          15. bobnstuff says:

            The Teflon President, I all so ran own a business in the 80’s but prime wasn’t that big a problem because of delayed billing. Jmmy Carter is a fine man but not a great president. Reagan was a great leader, people would believe anything he said, the problem was he didn’t understand the role of the government or the president for that mater.

          16. bookworm says:

            You ran a business in the 80s, during Reagan. Jimmy Carter is a good man? He’s an antisemite, one-worlder, gave away the Panama Canal and Okinawa. He screwed over the Shah of Iran. His running of the country gave us double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. Both at home and abroad, the man was a total disaster. He got so angry by the good feelings at Nixon’s funeral, that he’s been doing what other past presidents have never done, interfering in the policies of the current administration to try and put a better face on his legacy. He’s now angry, embittered, and vicious. He hates America and her people because we don’t like him in huge numbers, and he’s giving the keynote address this autumn at a national Muslim conference in the US.

          17. bobnstuff says:

            I don’t know where you get your facts about his being bitter, I never got that feeling. Nor do I think he hates America when you look at all the good work he has done of the poor in our country. As far as being the keynote speaker at the national Muslim conference, why not? He is a good Christian and the people attending are American’s. A little fact I ran into the other day, a higher percentage of the Muslim population serve defending our country then any other religion.

          18. bobnstuff says:

            I just looked up average unemployment by president and found that Reagan was hire the Carter.

          19. bookworm says:

            Fair play: Other than scale and resulting implementation requirements, can you define the difference for me between European feudalism — lord and lady of the manor responsible for health, education, clothing, food, shelter, and employment for their serfs — and modern government socialism? My ancestors came here to be citizens, not subjects, and escape the European paradigm, yet America is now turning into a nation of subjects. As Benjamin Franklin put it, if we let the feckless vote, we will have lots of “bread and circuses” and an empty treasury.

          20. I Seigel says:

            I’m not sure I understand the parameters that you’ve set for your argument. “Other than scale and resulting implementation requirements…” – why wouldn’t scale and implementation be necessary aspects to consider when discussing the differences?

            By your definitions and parameters, a modern family with kids going to school operates on a system of European feudalism. The parents (lord and lady of the house) are responsible for all those things for their kids.

            You say that your ancestors came from Europe to be free citizens and not subjects. Presumably, they wanted to own their own property, rather than be a tenant farmer as many Irish were in the 1800’s, prior to the potato famine. Or they didn’t want crushing taxation, as serfs were forced to pay to their lord and lady. Or they didn’t want taxation without representation, as most citizens were forced to pay to their kings.

            They also wanted to be free to practice the religion of their choice and not the king’s religion, but that’s a slightly different topic.

            So your parents came to this country to own their own property – or at least have a reasonable chance of owning – and they now have taxation WITH representation and they don’t pay crushing taxes – on the order of 60-80% of their income. And they have access to decent healthcare and pensions, which were not available to them had they stayed in Europe under “feudal” conditions. If they were there now, however, they might have access to paid vacations, inexpensive healthcare, guaranteed pensions and other benefits that Germany, England and other countries in Europe provide to their citizens.

            To say they came to America to escape “feudalism” in the 1700’s and to claim they were better off in America is a good argument. To say that they came here 20 years ago to escape European socialism and that they’re better off here rather than there, I think a more vigorous argument could be made against that claim.

            There are vast numbers of Europeans who are quite happy there and have no interest in living “the American dream”. Ditto for Canadians.

          21. bookworm says:

            No, my example is the state replacing the lord and lady of the manor — state providing employment, healthcare, welfare, education, clothing, shelter, food — and the scale is the difference between say, 1,000 acres feudal estate and the size of a modern nation like France. And that’s where the problem lies with US socialism: The US is lots of individual states like France and Italy, with France and Italy running their own states — this was the original US federal system: Individual states running their states locally, and only defense for the combined states and commerce between states being run by the federal government. Local issues, from what punishment is proper for murderers, to what is taught in the individual state’s schools, is definitely local. It’s the fine distinction between citizen and subject, and United States is and United States are.

          22. bookworm says:

            My ancestors, merchants and younger sons, came here before 1650 for all the reasons you cited, and as a member of the DAR I’ve done my best to learn exactly what the words and intentions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution meant to those who wrote them. As for the Europeans and Canadians being perfectly happy where they are, they should be. They have what they want where they are. My objection is importing the residual impetus of European feudalism, socialism, into the US body politic.

          23. I Seigel says:

            But my question to you earlier about schools, driving, etc was to point out that we already have socialism here. We pay taxes, and combined with the taxes of others, we get services that we could not acquire on our own. That’s a classic example of socialism. We ask our employers to provide health care and pension benefits, which in other countries the state provides. Another example of socialism. Social Security is another example. You don’t have to worry about importing socialism into the US – it’s been here for awhile. AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT (in my opinion). Most Americans would like to keep Social Security, but ask them if that makes them “socialists” and they’d threaten you or laugh at you.

            Too many people freak out over labels, but if they actually thought about what they’re screaming against, they’d realize that they use and benefit from the same services and system they rail against.

          24. bookworm says:

            I did answer (see below about education, driving, etc) — the European peasants paid “taxes” in the form of labor on the lord’s land, and produce and livestock to the church and lord for “rent” on their own patch of the lord’s land. So we pay state taxes for roads, and also we pay federal taxes for roads. We pay federal taxes for common defense. We should not be paying or supporting federal taxes for schooling — that should be a strictly local provision. My mother once figured out how much had been taken out of her pay for Social Security since it started, how much she’d have at retirement, and she hit the roof: She’d have retired a millionaire if she’d been allowed to save her money herself and get the interest from her savings. Same thing with medicine: A doctor told me in the mid 60s that if the government got involved in medical care, the prices would go through the roof and quality of care of would decline. Isn’t that exactly where we are?
            Labels do have meaning: Capitalism means a few people have a store full of coffee, the vast majority have all the coffee they want, and a few have no coffee at all. Socialism equates to everyone only has one mug of coffee per day.

          25. I Seigel says:

            One thing you said – or implied – I DO agree with you about, and that is your coffee analogy, although I don’t attribute it to “socialism”: the federal effort for No Child Left Behind, and now its successor Common Core, seems to be a “race to the bottom”, in that the programs are designed so everyone passes a minimum set of standards. But there is no effort to cater to the top students, only to the bottom students. I’m not sure what the solution is, but national standards don’t seem to be it. But if there was NO federal money given to the states for education, how would the states afford it? The people still have to pay taxes – so they’d pay less Federal and more state taxes. Or more real estate taxes. You can’t just eliminate taxes. Or I should ask – what do you see as the solution?

            Regarding Social Security – your mother might THINK she could have retired a millionaire if she’d had control of that money, but it’s very debatable and not guaranteed.

          26. bookworm says:

            Considering how much she made and how much she saved, she’d have done it. As for education, before 1960, there were no federal funds for public educaiton k-12. Before the GI Bill, there were no federal funds for higher education. It’s the same assessment that the doctor gave: the more federal involvement, the higher the costs, the less quality there is. Yet all the states managed a degree of education that has not been attained since 1941: Only 2% of the men drafted to serve in WWII were illiterate. That has not been true since federal funding of education started.

          27. bookworm says:

            No, yes to drive, no to public transport (horrors on wheels), had well and septic, now moved and retired. Everything you mentioned falls into the “scale and resulting implementation requirements” I’ve cited below.

    3. Cynic says:

      Well, I guess he still has you pathetic people to do his apologizing for him. Yes, I see that he has a few more gray hairs than he used to have, but what stress does he have? He’s the most disengaged president of my lifetime.

      Manners? Respect? Gratitude? You are kidding, right? I think you have the presidency confused with the monarchy. We don’t owe this guy a damn thing.

      1. Maggie De Vore says:

        You sound like your words came straight from FUX news — the purveyors of liars, cheats, cowards – i.e. Bush, Cheney? You see what happens is that these folks haven’t a clue about what’s good for the people — it’s a money thing, which comes from the oil thing which comes from the war thing over lies about WMD. And you do what?

  • guest says:

    What a turd. Dont hold back Obama tell us what you really think

  • logger1492 says:

    It won’t be long before some family tell the president what part of their anatomy to kiss and hang up on him for his phony sentiments. It is not that everyone doesn’t already know this man, it is only because we still have some respect left for the office in spite of the fact that he is the president

    1. bookworm says:

      Haven’t we already reached the point where most of us wouldn’t take his call at all ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.