President Obama appeared on 'The View,' telling the hosts he didn't know anything about pop culture (when he does). White House photo, Pete Souza

President Obama appeared on “The View” this morning to answer important questions about Lindsay Lohan, the “Jersey Shore” and Twitter.

When co-host Joy Behar asked the president whether Snooki should run for mayor of Wasilla, AK, Obama played dumb:

I gotta admit, I don’t know who Snooki is.

It is ingratiating for the president to be ignorant of mindless, pop culture references. But, the president has spoken about Snooki before — at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner on May 1.

Obama mentioned the MTV reality star during a joke about hidden provisions in the health care reform bill:

This next provision is called the Jersey Shore-Up. It reads: “The following individuals shall be excluded from the indoor tanning tax within this bill: Snooki, J-WOWW, the Situation, and House Minority Leader John Boehner.”

The president either really doesn’t know who Snooki is and just read a speech penned by someone else (writers from “The Daily Show”), or he lied on “The View.”

But what’s more, the White House is lying when it says Republicans “were going to stall the nomination as long as they could.”

In a post at the White House blog, the president’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, wrote:

Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points.

But with the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors’ care under the Affordable Care Act, there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing. That’s why tomorrow the President will use a recess appointment to put Dr. Berwick at the agency’s helm and provide strong leadership for the Medicare program without delay.

Quite the contrary, as ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., echoed the president’s suggestion, saying that “Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern.”

But Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination.

Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.

“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing.

Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”

Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.

But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.

It’s worth noting that the president placed two other people in positions that are normally Senate-confirmable: Philip E. Coyle III as associate director for National Security and International Affairs and Joshua Gotbaum as director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Republicans did strongly object to Coyle, but it was Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who blocked Gotbaum’s nomination.

But back to Berwick and “Washington game-playing.” It was the Republicans who wanted the hearings to proceed. The Democrats (and probably the White House) wanted to avoid the debate that would surround the president’s pick.

Tapper makes a couple of good points at the end of his post:

You can argue – and White House officials and Senate Democrats are, in fact, doing so – that Democrats were delaying Berwick’s hearing and the vote on his nomination because Republicans were going to play politics with it.

But a) that’s not the same as delaying or obstructing his nomination and b) some might argue that there’s also something to be said about combating policy arguments with better policy arguments.

According to Barack Obama's own standard, his nominee to run the the government's health care programs is 'damaged goods.' NIH photo

According to a post on the White House blog, President Obama will use his recess appointment powers to appoint Dr. Donald Berwick to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Recess appointments are perfectly legal, and the Senate still must confirm recess nominees by the end of the next Congress.

However, Obama hasn’t always been a fan of recess appointments. When President George W. Bush used the process to place John Bolton at the U.N., Obama called him “damaged goods” because Bolton was controversial:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

Like Bolton, Berwick is controversial — which is why the Senate hasn’t confirmed him yet. He’s spoken about how wonderful the British, government-run health care system is, especially when it redistributes wealth, and he’s admitted that more government involvement in health care will lead to rationing. That’s why the Senate hasn’t approved his nomination, which was made back in April.

By sidestepping the Senate, Obama is avoiding putting Berwick in the hot seat and instead sticking him directly at the head of Medicare and Medicaid. According to Obama’s own standard, Berwick is “damaged goods.”

Berwick will be Obama’s 18th recess appointment. As Jake Tapper points out, Bush had made 15 recess appointments this far into his presidency.

Hillary Clinton told a gathering of democratic nations in Poland on July 3 that Venezuela silences free speech, then praised the country for its belief in free speech two days later. State Department photo

Speaking at the Community of Democracies meeting in Krakow, Poland, Hillary Clinton warned against allowing countries throughout the world to silence free speech and impede non-government organizations (NGOs).

One line from the speech popped out two days later, when the secretary of state issued a statement about Venezuela’s independence day (which the South American nation celebrates one day after the United States).

This is what she told those gathered in Poland:

In Central Asian countries, constitutions actually guarantee the right of association. But governments still place onerous restrictions on NGO activity, often through legislation or stringent registration requirements. Venezuela’s leaders have tried to silence independent voices that seek to hold that government accountable. In Russia, while we welcome President Medvedev’s statements in support of the rule of law, human rights activities and journalists have been targeted for assassination, and virtually none of these crimes have been solved.

Fair enough. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez shut down radio stations in that country last year that criticized his government.

But in the statement on Venezuela’s independence, Clinton said “on behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States:”

The cultural ties between United States and Venezuela are deep and enduring, and it is fitting that we celebrate our independence anniversaries within one day of each other.

We share a common history of emancipation and democratic aspiration. Patriots across the Americas committed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of independence and to ensure that all people would have the right to chart their own destinies. The development of our nations has been driven by common values and a belief in individual liberties, fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech and expression, and a right to self-determination. Living up to these values is our shared responsibility.

On Saturday, our secretary of state called out Venezuela for silencing independent voices. On Monday, she praised Venezuela for its belief in “fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech and expression.”

What happened on Sunday?

During his speech on illegal immigration, President Obama got the history of the Statue of Liberty completely wrong. White House photo, Pete Souza

During his speech on immigration reform at American University, President Obama trotted out Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” which is engraved on a plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

The poem is fitting when talking about immigration — “give me your tired, and your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” — but he got the history of the poem and of Lady Liberty all wrong.

Here’s what Obama said:

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Years before the statue was built — years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish — she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.

He then quoted the poem, leaving out parts and restating others.

More than misquoting the poem, though, the president’s history is wrong.

Emma Lazarus did not, as Obama said, spend “much of her time advocating for better health care … for the newcomers.” She was a poet and a leading advocate of Zionism. Perhaps the work to which the president referred was her work for the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society — which found Jewish refugees to the United States jobs and homes.

Lazarus did not donate her poem to raise money for the Statue of Liberty — the poem was auctioned to raise money for the pedestal of the statue. “Liberty Enlightening the World” was given to the United States, and paid for, by the French to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

That bears repeating. The French gave the statue to the United States to mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — it had nothing to do with immigration.

On that same note, the statue was not “funded in part by small donations from people across America.” The deal was, the French would donate the statue and the Americans would provide the pedestal. And in fact, according to the National Park Service, the fundraisers for the pedestal fell far short of paying for it, and “Joseph Pulitzer stepped in and was able to raise the remaining money for the pedestal using his newspaper ‘The World.’ ”

While the president may be correct that Lazarus envisioned a statue that “would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom,” the poem wasn’t even read at the statue’s dedication.

It didn’t even appear in the pedestal until 1903, when Lazarus had been dead for six years, after her friend pushed to memorialize the poet.

Rush Limbaugh teed off on this during his show, and The Right Scoop has video.

President Obama suggested he and Russian President Medvedev should communicate using "Twitters," but he's already told us that he's "never used Twitter." White House photo, Pete Souza

A little more than six months ago, President Obama told students in China that he’s “never used Twitter” because his thumbs are too clumsy, which was a surprise to the millions of those who follow @barackobama.

Today he’s changed his tune. The president not only is on “Twitters,” he joked that it could replace the legendary red phones that connected the White House to the Kremlin during the Cold War.

Here’s what he told the Chinese in November after a question about whether citizens of the communist nation should be allowed to use Twitter:

Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I noticed that young people — they’re very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone. But I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information.

And today during a press conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

I appreciated very much the opportunity to hear President Medvedev’s vision for modernization in Russia, especially high-tech innovation. This is a personal passion of the President. And during his visit to Silicon Valley this week, he visited the headquarter of Twitters [sic], where he opened his own account. I have one as well, so we may be able to finally throw away those “red phones” that have been sitting around for so long.

Does this mean the president does use his Twitter account and it’s not operated by a staffer at the DNC (since he called it “Twitters,” I would guess not)? Or is he just lying, as he did about his iPod? If so, one can only hope the intern at Organizing for America’s HQ has security clearance to handle whatever messages Medvedev might send his way.

President Obama tells Matt Lauer he's looking for "whose ass to kick," but just six days ago he said harsh language wasn't appropriate.

The big news coming out of an interview set to air tomorrow on the “Today Show” is that President Obama showed anger when talking about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (how sad is it that the media focused on the president’s use of a curse word and not anything else from the interview?).

After Matt Lauer asked Obama about his dithering on finding a solution to the crisis, the president said this:

I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.

It’s no big deal that the president used the word “ass” — though it is slightly unpresidential in an interview setting. Apparently, after being prompted by the liberal and conservative press to “emote,” Obama felt the need to show some public rage.

The problem is that the president said during his May 27 press conference that harsh language wasn’t appropriate.

Major Garrett of Fox News asked Obama about Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s statement on May 2 that, “Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities they have both under the law and contractually to move forward and stop this spill.”

To which the president said:

With respect to the metaphor that was used, I think Ken Salazar would probably be the first one to admit that he has been frustrated, angry, and occasionally emotional about this issue, like a lot of people have. I mean, there are a lot of folks out there who see what’s happening and are angry at BP, are frustrated that it hasn’t stopped. And so I’ll let Ken answer for himself. I would say that we don’t need to use language like that; what we need is actions that make sure that BP is being held accountable.

If the president’s standard of language “we don’t need to use” is keeping “the boot on the neck” of BP, then certainly saying he needs to know “whose ass to kick” is inappropriate.

But it’s a lot to ask the president to live up to his own standards six days later.

President Obama, who talked about his iPod playlist during the campaign, now claims he doesn't know how to use the device. White House photo, Pete Souza

It’s commencement season, and like last year, the president is making the rounds.

Speaking at Hampton University, President Obama warned the students there about the effects of technology:

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

Let’s forget for a moment that devices that play music and video games have been around for decades (“It would be like having Jimmy Carter warn in 1980 about the evils of transistor radios and album-oriented rock on FM stations.“).

The president is lying when he says he doesn’t “know how to work” an iPod (and I would assume he can figure out an iPad). He has an iPod. He told Rolling Stone in June 2008 that Bob Dylan, Yo-Yo Ma, Sheryl Crow and Jay-Z were all on the iPod he was using during the campaign.

We already know Obama is an Xbox hypocrite and that the president’s Twitter account is run by a staffer (or the DNC).

Is some White House aide always on hand to operate Obama’s iPod as well, since he doesn’t know how to work it?

President Obama is still lying about the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. White House photo

It’s too bad the president’s weekly radio/video/Internet address is recorded in an empty room with no audience. The setting avoids the images of a Supreme Court justice mouthing the words “not true” in reaction to Barack Obama.

Because President Obama repeated some whoppers this week.

Going after the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, again, Obama the Constitutional-law professor got his facts wrong, again. After the political media focused so much on Justice Samuel Alito’s reaction to the president during his most recent State of the Union, one wouldn’t be remiss to assume the president would recheck his facts.

Not so with Barack Obama. Here’s what he said this week:

That’s one of the reasons I ran for President: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington. And that’s why, since the day I took office, my administration has been taking steps to reform the system. Recently, however, the Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned decades of law and precedent – dealing a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence. In short, this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money – literally millions of dollars – to affect elections throughout our country. This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government.

The Supreme Court decision did not, as the president said, overturn “decades of law and precedent.” The court struck down a provision of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill of 2002 — an 8-year-old law — that banned companies and other entities from spending their cash directly on campaigns as opposed to filtering their money through a PAC.

From the New York Times:

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

Back in January the president said the decision would allow foreign entities to contribute money to U.S. campaigns, and Obama is still spreading that lie:

In addition, these reforms would address another troubling aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Under the bill Congress will consider, we’ll make sure that foreign corporations and foreign nationals are restricted from spending money to influence American elections, just as they were in the past – even through U.S. subsidiaries.

Foreign companies flexing their financial muscle in U.S. elections is scary stuff, for sure, but he court did not “open the floodgates” for foreign contributions. They are still illegal.

From the National Review:

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.”

The president is lying. Again. Alito knows it:

At the end of his nuclear summit, President Obama said of the U.S., "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower." White House photo

President Obama has finished up yet another lackluster summit of world leaders resulting in nonbinding agreements (at least he stayed home this time), this one dealing with “nuclear security.”

During a press conference at the end of the events, Ed Chen of Bloomburg asked Obama whether he possessed the political capital to jump start U.S. efforts in the Middle East. As part of his answer, the president said this:

It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

What? “Whether we like it or not” the U.S. remains a “dominant military superpower?”

Except in the extremities of the left wing, who in the United States would not like it that our nation is a (if not THE) dominant military superpower? Would the president had even been able to call the world’s leaders to Washington to discuss nuclear security if the United States wasn’t a dominant superpower?

On the world stage, the country with the most leverage and influence is the strongest. So why couch the fact that the we are powerful with “whether we like it or not?”

As Ed Morrissey noted:

The phrase “whether we like it or not” usually connotes a negative to which an audience has to resign themselves. To give one example, no one ever hears, “Whether you like it or not, you’re going to get a banana split with your choice of toppings,” or “Like it or not, I’m going to get naked now.”