Items on this page are archived in
order of discovery. Previous years in left column . . .
A Footnote In Presidential History
says Barack Obama has set a course that will leave his legacy as no
more than a footnote in American presidential history. For all of
the bluster and glory, for all of the pomp and circumstance, and yes,
for all of the anticipated hope and the promised change, the whirlwind
of hype and expectation surrounding Obama a mere two years earlier has
He was the man destined to save this country
from his predecessor's failures. He was the man who would end the
war in Iraq, finish the war in Afghanistan, and shut down the prison at
Guantánamo Bay. He was the man charged with rescuing the faltering
American economy. He was the man who would usher in a post-racial
era in an allegedly inherently racist American society. And he was
the man who had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based not on tangible
accomplishment, but simply upon these very expectations.
of these accounts, Obama has been a striking failure.
He has not
saved this country from the Bush-era failures; rather, he has done the
impossible in making Americans pine for the days that Bush was in
office, with Obama's job approval rating recently falling below that of
the former president.
Obama did not end the war in Iraq; he
merely claimed credit for a deal negotiated under the Bush
administration. The Status of Forces Agreement, signed by U.S. and
Iraqi officials on November 16, 2008, already laid the groundwork for an
end to combat missions in Iraq.
He has not brought an end to the
war in Afghanistan, instead emulating a military strategy that was a
basis for success in Iraq, the surge. What was once heavily
criticized by Obama as a failed strategy has since been hailed as a path
to victory in a war that recently sparked Bush-like protests from the
Obama has failed to close the prison at Guantánamo
Bay, an alleged symbol of American tyranny and torture, and a top
priority of Obama during his campaign. Shortly after his
inauguration, executive orders were issued for the closure of the prison
within a year. The thinking was that such a facility was not
"consistent with our values and our ideals." Gitmo remains open
nearly two years later, an apparent admission that Obama is not
consistent with his own values and ideals.
He has failed in every
manner to resuscitate the stumbling economy. The unemployment rate
has continued its upward trend under Obama, going from 7.7% in January
of 2009 to the current rate of 9.8%. Meanwhile, attempts to
convince the American people of the success of the stimulus bill were
manufactured in deceitful ways despite clear signs of turbulence in the
economy. Personal incomes continue to trend downward, as does
private-sector job creation, and the national deficit is projected to
balloon to a staggering $1.5 trillion in 2011.
has been anything but post-racial, with heightened racial rhetoric and
actions coming from the administration itself. Setbacks for the
post-racial presidency include the firing and subsequent apology to a
black official, Shirley Sherrod, at the Agriculture Department; Obama
himself, without knowing the facts of the case, labeling police as
having "acted stupidly" following the arrest of a black Harvard
professor; and the Justice Department's dismissal of voter intimidation
charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during the 2008
Worse, Obama has been governing by putting policy over
process, inviting unprecedented backroom deals for health care
reform...and now, apparently, tax compromise solutions.
sides of the aisle enraged by the process, the recent tax compromise is
simply the nail in the coffin. Obama himself once declared that
"[a] good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good
sentence or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it."
Complaints from both sides of the aisle indeed indicate that everyone
recognizes this -- as a bad compromise.
And unlike Bill
Clinton's shift to the center during his tenure, Obama's backroom
successes and polarizing failures will only result in a perpetual
downturn in his approval rating. His recent ceding of the podium
to Clinton seems to indicate an acceptance of this fate.
has gone from being "a big f'n deal" to eliciting utter contempt and
disrespect for the highest office in the land. His liberal
colleagues angrily mutter, "F the president."
Like a good
compromise, a good president, too, is something that everybody can
recognize. Years from now, recognition of Obama as a transcendent
president will long be forgotten, and the era of the man who was to save
America will be nothing more than a footnote in history.
His Own Worst Enemy
says the year ended with the media pushing the notion that Barack
Obama -- having had one of the worst years in presidential history --
has salvaged both his presidency and his re-election chances with his
stunning "comeback" in the dwindling hours of the lame-duck session.
Don't believe a word of it.
If generals are always fighting
the last war, then the pundits are always reaching for the last cliché.
Did Bill Clinton face a similar dilemma back in 1994, after Newt
Gingrich and the Republicans ate his lunch? Did he not come back
to marginalize Gingrich and -- that little impeachment trifle aside --
depart office still popular?
Very well then, all Obama has to do
is "triangulate" -- i.e., pretend to agree with both sides -- and the
great unwashed "centrist" electorate will flock back to his banner.
After all, it worked for the original "Comeback Kid."
starters, this ignores several major distinctions between Clinton and
Obama. Slick Willie learned his skills growing up in the
crime-syndicate town of Hot Springs, Ark. Say what you will about
those old gangsters, they knew how to run an effective political
operation, by turns tough and solicitous, happy to raise money for the
widows and orphans their trigger men had just created. By
contrast, Obama is a displaced person adopted by the far cruder Chicago
machine, which turned his superficial charm and his palpable animus
against the American ideal into a winning combination in the perfect
storm 2008 election.
More important, it's unclear that Obama has
it in him to compromise and pretend to like it. No one could fake
sincerity like Clinton, but Obama is a far different sort of political
animal. His tax-deal press conference was a remarkable glimpse
behind the Wizard of Oz curtain at a scowling man who believes his
political opponents are "hostage-takers" and enemies -- not just of the
people, but of him personally.
So try as the media might,
there's simply no way that a few lesser legislative victories translate
into a refreshed political potency. When you've been humbled on
taxes by the minority Republicans and failed to pass an omnibus budget,
you've been beaten soundly on matters of domestic policy -- a clear
signal that the incoming Tea Party-infused Republican majority in the
House is already having an effect. And when one of your great
victories is the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," a Bill Clinton
initiative . . .
None of this stops the left or its media
cheerleaders from spinning a horrible year for both Obama and the
country into a triumph of the human spirit. Obama's "victories" in
the "productive" lame-duck session may not be the end of "High Noon,"
but for now they'll have to do.
What's next? Look for the
media to start laying the groundwork for the 2012 campaign. The
new House GOP majority will be tagged as "extremists." Reporters
will circle the incoming freshmen, hoping to pick off enough of them to
dilute the ferocity of their mission. Speaker John Boehner will be
implored to find "common ground" and, if he doesn't, will get the full
brunt of the Gingrich treatment as the primaries heat up. Of
course, the slightest uptick in the economy will be hailed as the proof
of the rightness of Obama's policies.
Finally, every move Obama
makes as he confronts the reality of the 112th Congress will be hailed
as a Machiavellian masterpiece. It won't matter whether it's good
for the country: To the media as well as to the Democrats, the only
thing that really counts is electoral success.
Obama undergoes a vast personal metamorphosis, it probably won't work.
He's too inexperienced a politician and too starchy a man. He
himself has said he'd rather be a good one-term president than a failed
two-term president, but the way things are going, he may end up having
it both ways, minus the "good."
Obama's worst enemy is not
Boehner, or Sarah Palin, or any Republican; it's himself.
Forget The Liberal Hype
says forget the liberal hype about a comeback: 2010 was a stunningly
bad year for Barack Obama, and 2011 could be even worse. It was a
year Obama will want to forget:
1. The midterm elections were a
defeat of epic proportions for Obama
When Barack Obama spoke of a
"shellacking" at the midterms, it was a huge understatement. The
Republicans scored a significantly bigger win than they did in 1994,
with their biggest gain in the House of Representatives in 62 years --
since 1948. Fortunately for the Democrats, just 37 Senate seats
were up for election, preventing what would have been an almost certain
handover of power in the Senate, as well. Republicans also made
huge gains at the gubernatorial level, with the GOP now holding 29
governorships to the Democrats’ 20. Republicans also picked up 680
seats in state legislatures, the highest figure in the modern era.
2. Conservatism grew increasingly dominant in America
midterms were certainly no flash in the pan, but part of a broader
conservative revolution that swept America in 2010. As a recent
Gallup survey showed, 48 percent of Americans now describe themselves as
"conservative", compared to 32 percent who call themselves "moderate,"
and just 20 percent who call themselves "liberal." Conservatives
now outnumber liberals by nearly 2.5 to 1, a ratio that is likely to
increase in 2011. The percentage of Americans who are conservative
has risen six points since 2006 and eight points since 1994.
Barack Obama, the most liberal US president of the modern era, has a
natural liberal constituency comprised of just one in five Americans,
which certainly does not bode well for 2012.
3. The Left lost
ground and engaged in a brutal civil war
2010 was a monumentally
bad year for the liberal establishment in the United States, not only in
electoral terms but in terms of increasing divisions within its ranks,
as well as the continuing decline of the "mainstream" liberal media.
Conservative media, from Fox News to The Wall Street Journal, have had a
tremendous year, increasing market share while establishment giants from
CNN to network news outlets continue to decline. The White House
unwisely took on Fox in a major offensive, and spectacularly lost.
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and a constellation of
conservative talk show hosts have had a bumper 2010. In the
meantime, America’s disillusioned liberal elites are increasingly aiming
their fire at each other, in scenes reminiscent of the bloodthirsty
finale of Reservoir Dogs. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
perfectly captured the brutal post-midterm atmosphere on the Left in a
fiery broadside against Obama: "Whatever is going on inside the White
House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse -- a complete
failure of purpose and loss of direction."
4. The TEA Party
became more powerful than Obama at the ballot box
The TEA Party
was the big victor of 2010, and spectacularly humiliated the White House
by running rings around it. A small grassroots movement with
barely any resources evolved into the most successful US political
movement of this generation, sparking a national protest against the Big
Government policies of the Obama administration, and a powerful call for
a return to America’s founding principles. The TEA Party was
initially mocked and jeered by its political opponents, including Obama,
but later came to be feared by the Left as it flexed tremendous
political muscle. As I noted in September, a CNN poll showed that
"while just 37 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for a
candidate if backed by Barack Obama, a far larger 50 percent will vote
for a TEA-Party endorsed candidate." The TEA Party continues to
gain momentum following the midterms, where it scored significant
successes, and a late November USA Today/Gallup poll showed the TEA
Party virtually neck and neck with Obama in terms of voter opinion on
who should influence government policy.
This is a copy of the letter
that was sent to me in relation to my position as Editor-In-Chief of
American Liberty Magazine, and I have to admit I applaud these members
of Congress for what they did !
Join me in sending a short,
heartfelt thanks to each of them.
Below are images that link to
a high resolution copies all all three pages, that are really, really
Click for large images, then click those for
Hope, Change, And Helplessness
says the anniversary Barack Obama most dreads is approaching,
providing stark evidence, even to his base, that he is way over his head
when it comes to the responsibilities of governing.
anniversary, of course, is, as Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph reminds
...the same day he took the presidential oath a
second time. It came in the form of a gravely worded executive
In it, Obama solemnly proclaimed: "The detention
facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall
be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the
date of this order."
The order was signed in the presence of
a gaggle of retired senior military officers who had backed Obama's
candidacy. One of them, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, declared January
22 a "blockbuster day"
It turns out that the presidency is a lot more
complicated than Obama realized from his perspective as a mere talker.
The devil is in the details, and in the case of Gitmo, little details
like finding alternative places to keep dangerous terrorists are
devilish indeed. Outright bribery secured a few slots overseas,
most famously the 4 Uyghurs housed in perpetual vacation in Bermuda at
US Taxpayer expense. No state in the United States was willing to
risk housing these dangerous terrorists on its own soil, and the
Democrat-dominated Congress refused to allocate funds for the purpose of
transferring the prisoners to the mainland.
So Obama's first
executive order, regarded by his base as a solemn commitment, is now a
colossal joke, evidence that he can't accomplish even that over which he
has executive powers. No doubt he would prefer that January 22nd
come and go unremarked. But that isn't in the cards, because there
are actually lots of left wing Democrats who care passionately over the
perceived injustices of holding enemy combatants until the war they
launched is over.
Obama's incompetence is what both left and
right will memorialize in three weeks.
It's Good To Have A 747
says Obama will spend Monday night flying across the Pacific and
United States after his latest vacation, 11 days in Hawaii. It
will be his first trip of 2011 aboard Air Force One.
Obama flew in Air Force One 172 times, almost every other day.
White House officials have been telling reporters in recent days that
the Democrat doesn't intend to hang around the White House quite so much
in 2011. They explain he wants to get out more around the country
because, as everyone knows, that midterm election shellacking on Nov. 2
had nothing to do with his healthcare bill, over-spending or other
policies, and everything to do with Obama's not adequately explaining
himself to his countrymen and women.
And with only 673 days
remaining in Obama's neverending presidential campaign, the incumbent's
travel pace will not likely slacken.
At an Air Force-estimated
cost of $181,757 per flight hour (not to mention the additional travel
costs of Marine One, Secret Service, logistics and local police
overtime), that's a lot of frequent flier dollars going into Obama's
We are privy to some of these numbers thanks to
CBS' Mark Knoller, a bearded national treasure trove of presidential
stats. According to Knoller's copious notes, during the last year,
Obama made 65 domestic trips over 104 days, and six trips to eight
countries over 22 days. Not counting six vacation trips over 32
He took 196 helicopter trips, signed 203 pieces of
legislation and squeezed in 29 rounds of left-handed golf.
last year gave 491 speeches, remarks or statements. That's more
talking than goes on in some entire families, at least from fatherly
In fact, even including the 24 days of 2010 that we never
saw Obama in public, his speaking works out to about one official
utterance every 11 waking hours. Aides indicate the "Real Good
Talker" believes we need more.
As Obama so often says, "Please be
Related:Obama spends nearly half his
presidency outside Washington, plans to travel more
Related:Vacationer-in-Chief Spends $1.75 Million to Visit
has spent over $100 million taxpayer dollars flying around in Air Force
One, and probably another $100 million on his entourage. Obama is
just another tin-pot dictator living lavishly at the expense of his
Is Obama Intentionally Damaging Our Economy
says that may seem like an absurd question, but it’s hard to come to
any other conclusion when you consider what is happening to our energy
industry on the Gulf Coast. As the Wall Street Journal reports
today, the Obama Administration may have lifted its ban on drilling in
the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, but there are still long delays in getting
other permits approved to drill for oil. Why? No one seems
to know. We assume that politicians do what is in their own
self-interest, but in this case Obama seems to be damaging himself
because he is dragging down the economy. As the Journal puts it,
"The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling
activity." And Obama doesn’t seem particularly eager to change
There are only a handful of possible explanations of
why he is doing this:
(1) He doesn’t care, and his radical
environmental agenda comes first. (2) He hates oil
companies so much that he’s willing to have his political fortunes
damaged further by dragging down the economy. (3) He hates
capitalism so much that he’s determined to "gut" a leading industry
such as energy. (4) There is raging incompetence in
In his recently released book Leadership and
Crisis, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recounts an exchange with Obama
during the Gulf oil drilling moratorium. (Full disclosure: I
co-wrote the book with Jindal.) After telling Obama that the
moratorium would potentially cost tens of thousands of jobs, "The
president went on to assure me that anyone who lost their job would get
a check from BP. When I explained that BP might not write them
checks because it was the federal government that imposed the moratorium
the president said, 'Well, if BP won’t pay the claim, they can file for
unemployment.' I was amazed by the level of disconnect. The
people of Louisiana want to work, not collect unemployment or BP
For Obama, getting an unemployment check is about the
same as getting paycheck.
So why is Obama doing this? Take
your pick. None of the possible explanations offer much hope for
the future. Bottom line:
Obama is knowingly damaging our economy, and
assuring that more money goes to energy producers like Venezuela,
Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Related:Drilling Is Stalled Even After
Ban Is Lifted
Follow The Rule Of Law
says the 2010 midterm elections represent a resounding referendum on
the Obama Administration. Voters turned out to repudiate policies
with which they disagreed. At the forefront of voter displeasure
were the new administration's massive spending and the ever-burgeoning
national debt. However, many voters also expressed concern that
the Obama Administration was taking actions that were at odds with
fundamental principles of law. The coming year represents an
opportunity for the administration to reverse course and adhere more
closely to the rule of law.
The rule of law is a key component of
the success of any society. In order to plan their affairs, people
need to know that they can count on the government and other individuals
to follow established and known legal rules and principles. Absent
such certainty, the ability to plan for the future breaks down.
Corruption and naked power replace law as the rule of decision, with
those with the most power shaping the playing field to benefit
themselves, even if it upsets settled expectations. As a result,
economic investment is discouraged, faith in the government is eroded,
and the ability of a society to move forward and grow is impeded.
This important value has not always received full respect from this
administration. In its zeal to further its progressive (socialist)
agenda, it has often sought to circumvent important legal barriers that
stood in its way. Thus, for example, Obama effectively
nationalized certain corporations in the automotive and financial
industries, exercising powers that arguably have no basis in our laws or
Constitution. Having done so, the government sought to rewrite
parties' contracts, limit the pay or other compensation of individuals
in the private sector, and upset expectations grounded in settled law or
the parties' written agreements.
It then pushed through Congress
a massive new healthcare law that, by all accounts, was the result of
unprecedented procedural maneuvers, with certain Senators obtaining
special deals for their States in exchange for their votes, spurring
Attorney Generals from other States to question the constitutionality of
the legislation. Likewise, the proposed legislation seeks to
compel private individuals to purchase health insurance from private
companies -- an unprecedented government action -- and even purports to
block Congress from subsequently repealing certain provisions absent a
vote by a supermajority of the Senate. One court has already
struck down aspects of the legislation as unconstitutional, observing
that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance
represents an "unchecked expansion" of government power that is at odds
with the Constitution.
Such government actions have already had
negative consequences. Private parties are unable to plan, worried
about future ramifications of the government's actions. Public
sentiment regarding the direction of the country has turned decidedly
negative, focusing on the litany of special deals and bailouts for those
who have political power or connections. Finally, when the
government has sought to restrict private individuals' compensation,
they have simply quit, unwilling to work for less than what the market
is willing to pay them.
Obama has an opportunity to reverse this
erosion of the rule of law. However, it is questionable whether he
will do so. Already, it has attempted to do by regulation what it
could not achieve through legislation, seeking to implement regulations
under the new health care law financing end-of-life advisory services
even though such measures failed during the legislative process.
Government agencies have no authority to regulate where Congress has not
authorized them to do so. As with its past actions, the debate
over the administration's most recent proposals is likely to play out in
That Was Then. This Is Now
says the Obama administration is warning of catastrophic
consequences if Congress does not increase the debt ceiling, the legal
limit on how much the federal government can borrow, but Barack Obama
held a different view on the issue as a senator in 2006.
16, 2006, then-Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) voted against raising the debt
ceiling and even spoke about it on the Senate floor before the
Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to increase it.
"The fact that we are here today to debate
raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead,
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the
backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt
Fast-forward to January 2011: The White House is
now stressing the need to increase the debt ceiling, currently $14.3
trillion, while Republicans in Congress believe a vote to raise the debt
limit should be offset by significant debt-reduction spending cuts.
The national debt stands at just under $13.9 trillion, as Obama racked
up more debt -- $3.22 trillion -- than all the previous presidents
Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the President’s Council of
Economic Advisors, said Sunday on ABC’s "This Week" that not raising the
debt limit would mean the United States is "essentially defaulting on
our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history.
The impact on the economy would be catastrophic."
to be gone, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked about
Obama’s 2006 speech, blamed former President George W. Bush’s policies
for the fiscal problems facing the country.
"Based on the outcome of that vote, the
country’s full faith and credit was not in doubt. The
president used it to make a point about needing to get serious about
"We are dealing with the legacy of decisions
that have been made over the past several years, not paying for a
prescription drug benefit, not paying for wars, not paying for tax
cuts that changed out fiscal situation much more markedly than
anything ever has," Gibbs said.
"It is important for Congress
not to play politics, not to play games, to find a way to raise that
debt limit, understand that we are going to have to take some
serious steps to get our fiscal house in order."
Before Obama Breaks The United States
says we have all heard how
narcissistic Barack Obama really is and how he does not like to take
orders from anybody but, presumably, Allah his Muslim deity.
(Christian? Don’t make me laugh.) Well for two years while he had
control over the United States Congress he was at least pictured to be
compliant with the whims of Pelosi and Reid, but secretly they also had
to be in concert with whomever it is that runs his complicated mind.
(George Soros perhaps?)
But at times he goes completely astray
and obeys only those "middle-of-the-night" voices that compel him to be
arbitrary and do it "his way."
Just today, David Limbaugh,
writing for NewsMax in a column titled "Obama’s Administrative Abuse
Rages On," advised that such a moment of acting "outside its
constitutional authority" by "affirmatively thwarting the express will
of the Congress" occurred when he issued "an executive order promising
to give (the International Monetary Fund) $140 billion for
redistribution to Third World countries."
How can that man just
DO something like that of his own volition? Can he raid the United
States Treasury at his will and give billions of our tax dollars away to
poor people in other countries without any approval or at least,
concurrence of some other justified authority? There is no record
of his having large sums of income from employment as a not too busy law
school teacher, so how did he accumulate all the millions of dollars to
have his net worth now stand at around 10 million dollars at the end of
2009 according to mangoboss.com?
Where in our Constitution does
it give him permission to steal the money we provide through our taxes
for his own personal pleasures? For that matter, is there any
LIMIT to the amount of our tax dollars that he can steal for his whims
and wishes, or does he have carte blanche?
Even David Limbaugh, a
normally very staunch conservative, does not call him to task in the
column advising of this chicanery, other than to casually refer to it as
a mockery of bipartisanship while referring to yet another departure
from normalcy with SIX recess appointments of shady characters that seem
to swarm in this Administration.
This guy must have had so little
money while growing up that he intends now to go on a spending spree
that will not only bring the United States to its knees, but the rest of
us along with the States. He seems intent on spending at least a
billion dollars for every day he was without mega-wealth as a child.
What the hell; it’s not his, the money he acquires for himself only goes
one way; from the Treasury to his bank account(s) non-stop.
They’re probably secreted away with his non-existent birth certificate.
He has been doing things like this for two whole years now; when is
someone going to question or challenge him? Is there ANYONE who
has the "standing" and the temerity or cajones to call him on his
Throwing money around like an eccentric
trillionaire with no visible signs of authority except those ultra
dangerous Executive Orders is setting a dangerous and costly precedent
particularly with no one offering a challenge to his actions.
Recess appointments are a bad enough thwart to the people’s will and his
apparent latest brainstorm, where instead of trying to get the
catastrophic Cap and Trade global (hoax) warming fiasco through
Congress, he will again issue (here we go again) Executive Orders
through the abominable Environmental Protection Agency to do the damage
that the failed legislation would have done; AGAIN thwarting the
When those new Cap and Trade Executive Orders meet
with opposition as such is proposed in Texas, then it is expected that
the incompetency of this Administration will once again rear its ugly
Hurricane Katrina head and try to take command of the requirements.
That’s where the hammer will hit the nail. If I know Texans, and I
have known quite a few over the years, we’ll witness a rebellion that
might even get some heretofore direct answers from Obama and company.
We the people had better pray that perhaps some one of the new
conservatives elected last November will step forward and demand an
accounting of Obama’s dangerous maneuvers towards extinction of the
Obama Chooses Chicago’s William Daley As
Chief Of Staff
Two administration officials tell The
Associated Press that William Daley will be the next White House chief
Barack Obama has chosen Daley, a former commerce
secretary, to replace interim chief of staff Pete Rouse.
who did not want to stay in the job and recommended Daley for it, will
remain at the White House in a senior position as counselor to Obama.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because
Obama has not yet made the announcement. Obama is expected to do
so later Thursday.
The chief of staff is considered one of the
most important and influential jobs in American government.
comes from a dynasticcorrupt Chicago family of politics. He is now a
banking executive for JPMorgan Chase.
says "Next stop, replacing Congress with the Chicago City Council."
How Did Obama React To The Tucson Tragedy
Why he watched the NFL playoffs, of course.
As everybody knows, sports top his agenda and are the only thing he has
any passion about.
is reporting that Obama and his wife left Valerie Jarrett's house at
11:11 p.m., after spending five hours at his senior adviser's residence,
the pool reports.
The Obamas left the White House for Jarrett's
shortly after Obama read his teleprompter script about the shooting of
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The pool adds: "The two stayed for
nearly five hours tonight, coincidentally leaving minutes after the
conclusion of two incredibly close NFL playoff games. The Seattle
Seahawks upset the New Orleans Saints 41-36, and the New York Jets just
eliminated the Indianapolis Colts 17-16 with a late field goal. No
news on what POTUS was actually doing."
Obama At Halftime
Bill Whittle looks at how far short the
rhetoric and promises of 2009 have fallen in 2011.
Obama Does Best When He Says Nothing
Jack Cashill says we saw Barack Obama in his
full Chauncey Gardiner mode. After the drubbing of November 2010,
Obama's handlers have come to understand that Obama does best when, like
Chauncey, he says nothing at all.
Chauncey Gardiner, the reader
may recall, is the protagonist of Jerzy Kosinski's 1971 prescient
satire, Being There, which was later made into a movie of the same name,
co-scripted by Kosinski.
As the plot goes, Chance the Gardener, a
sheltered simpleton, finds himself thrust into the world upon the death
oh his wealthy protector, his name now misinterpreted as "Chauncey
Forced to interact with society, the supremely bland
Chauncey so impresses politicos and the media with banal gardening
clichés -- "It is the responsibility of the gardener to adjust to the
bad seasons as well as enjoy the good ones" -- that they assume Chauncey
means much more than he actually does.
emptiness impresses the president and quickly thrusts him onto the
national stage. As he becomes a valued economic advisor -- "In a garden,
growth has its season" -- the president decides to review Chance's
history. To his horror, he finds that history, much like Obama's, is
"What do you mean, no background?" says the
president. "That's impossible, he's a very well known man!" No matter. As book and movie end, Chance is being considered for the presidency of
the United States.
In Being There, it was businessman Ben Rand
who took Chauncey under his wing and molded him into a national figure. In Illinois it was David Axelrod who molded Barack Obama. Although Obama
had a history, he reached the national stage because Axelrod suppressed
it and the media chose not to know it or share it.
What wowed the
masses on the campaign trail was Obama's ability to say next to nothing
and make it sound as pleasantly ambivalent as Chance did. Indeed, at the
start of his Senate career in 2005, Newsweek made Obama its cover boy
under the heading "The Color Purple."
says we now know exactly what the theme and theater of Tuesday’s
State of the Union (SOTU) address will be.
This video is a
preview of coming attractions. Without further ado-do, meet your
new Ronald Reagan. (You will recall that Obama took a Ronald
Reagan book with him on his Christmas vacation in Hawaii.)
Translation: Obama’s speech will have nothing to do with addressing the
state of our union. Ray Charles can see that the state of our
union has not been so "divided" since the Civil War. The only
people who are satisfied are those who feed from the government trough,
the bounty of which comes directly from the pockets of those who
actually work and produce. Unemployment remains steadily at one
hair’s breadth of panic level. Borders, illegal immigration,
terrorism, corruption, foreign affairs, debt and deficit, recession --
all these are matters of grave concern and worsening. Enter Barack
2.0, the Healing Centrist.
Obama’s SOTU will be NOTHING but Obama
campaigning for his 2012 bid by hoodwinking the gullible citizenry who
were duped into voting this dictator into power in 2008. Do you
like what you got so far?
Advice: Don’t buy one grain of the silo
of donkey dust this liar will be pouring through your TV screen on
The Danger: He will promise to be a good boy for the
next two years, and because of the Republican majority House of
Representatives, he’ll have no choice anyway because the 112th Congress
won’t fund his insane spending binges. Outward appearances will be
that he has, in fact, changed his ways and has now become a patriotic
fighter for the American Dream. Inwardly, he will bide his time
until he is reelected in 2012 for four more years when he’ll have
nothing to lose as far as the democratic election process is concerned.
But don’t believe for one second that this will stop his lust for
continued power and control. He will unload a series of
Socialistic legislation and usurpation that will make his first two
years look like tryouts. Watch closely for Obama to bypass our
constitutional process and operate off the radar through federal
regulation agencies such as EPA, FCC, IRS, etc. Do not expect to
get this information through the ObamaMedia. If you are not aware,
learn quickly how snakes function.
Conclusion: Change you will be
shamefully foolish to believe in.
Fool me once…
Obama Uses Soviet Space Program To Rally
Jim Hoft says that last night Obama used the
former Soviet space program to challenge Americans in his State of the
"Half a century ago the Soviets beat us into
space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik. We had no
idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there
yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better
research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we
unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and
millions of new jobs. This is our generation’s Sputnik
Did you notice he didn’t call it a NASA moment?
He couldn’t. Last year Obama cut NASA's funding.
Neil Armstrong spoke out at the time against the devastating cuts.
The world’s best-known astronaut, who has
traditionally avoided controversy and rarely seeks the limelight
despite his feat 41 years ago, warned that Obama risks blasting
American space superiority on a "long downhill slide to mediocrity".
The decision to cancel Constellation, the project to send
astronauts to the Moon again by 2020 and Mars by 2030, was
"devastating", Armstrong said in a powerful open letter to Obama.
"America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the
International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with
Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz -- at a price of over $50
million [£32 million] per seat with significant increases expected
in the near future -- until we have the capacity to provide
transportation for ourselves," he said in the letter, which was also
signed by Gene Cernan, the last man on the Moon, and Jim Lovell,
commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission in 1970.
Instead of focusing on space, Obama's NASA plan is
reach out to the Muslim world to, "to help them feel good about
their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
But his speechwriters still thought it would be a good idea to use NASA
in his State of the Union Address.
Dumb! Helping Muslims feel
good about themselves, reparations, regulations, and tax and spend, tax
and spend, tax and spend. That's our
State Of The Usual
early in during his State of the Union address last night, Barack Obama
acknowledged the results of last November’s election. He called
for unity and compromise, themes that have dominated his political
career because they appeal to the American character. Americans of
every political stripe want to believe that we’re all basically the same
sort of good-hearted people at our cores and that we all aspire to the
same sort of end results. A middle road that leads to worthy ends,
in other words, can always be found if we work hard enough to discover
it. Obama understands that portion of the American character
better than perhaps anyone else who has occupied the Oval Office, and --
as he did during the 2008 presidential campaign -- he warmed to the
familiar theme once again last night:
"What comes of this moment will be
determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether
we can work together tomorrow. I believe we can. I
believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here
expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that
governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties.
New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans.
We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges
we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."
And then, having declared the need for America to
pursue a bipartisan, middle-of-the-road future going forward, Obama
proceeded to outline his vision of that future -- a course in which
"compromise" consists almost entirely of conservatives and libertarians
abandoning their ideas and ideals in order to support the progressive
agenda. Obama’s version of "compromise" involves even more
increases in government spending -- although such expenditures will
hereafter be rebranded as "investments" -- along with the nation
continuing to ignore the 800 pound gorillas that are America’s
entitlement programs and continuing to pretend that ObamaCare is both
affordable and desirable.
Obama declared that America needs to
reinvent itself, but then proceeded to say that the only conduit for
such a rebirth is the federal government. The only way to kick
start our economy, Obama declared, was to take taxpayer dollars and use
them to seed a "green economy" and to hire more teachers who will train
future generations. It was a rather remarkable message, given the
mood of the nation. It’s as if Barack Obama is congenitally unable
to comprehend the basic argument that is at the heart of economic
discussions in the United States today: is the government better
equipped to create prosperity than the free enterprise system?
This is, of course, a more subtle argument than a simple declaration or
"choosing of sides." There is an ideal balance between
governmental authorities ensuring that a level playing field actually
exists, and the environment of freedom of thought and innovation in
which entrepreneurs make the most of such autonomy.
perfectly willing to tip his hat in the direction of American
entrepreneurs, so long as those businessmen and businesswomen aren’t too
successful. Obama praised small businesses and acknowledged their role
as job creators. But, at the same time, Obama stuck to the
progressive playbook, declaring that "big oil companies" and insurance
companies were the enemy and deserved to be punished. In Obama’s
world, there is nothing wrong with a ma and pa enterprise making a
twenty per cent return on a one million dollar investment. But, if
a large oil company realizes a five per cent return on a one hundred
billion dollar investment, there’s something terribly wrong in the
world. The term "economy of scale" -- which is so prevalent in the
business world -- seems to be a matter of mystery in the public sector.
Far from being a message of the kind of "hope" that Obama
trademarked in 2008, this state of the union address was little more
than an exercise in mouthing tired, discredited platitudes. The
economy isn’t going to rebound as a result of how many unneeded solar
panels some guy in Pennsylvania is able to produce. Meaningful
deficit reduction cannot happen until the imbalances that define the
Medicare and Social Security are addressed. If the nation in going
to move forward together, much less as one, we’ve got some tough policy
decisions to make.
Barack Obama didn’t address any of those tough
decisions during his second State of the Union address. Instead,
he pretty much stuck to the party line. We should expect nothing
more from a classically-trained Marxist-Chicago politician. The
wheels are coming off of the train, but the politicians at that wheel
always seem to be the last to notice.
America has a clear choice
to make: does the nation invest in government (though its support of
higher tax rates) or does it invest in the notion of free enterprise,
though a refusal to accept more government? That answer to that
question will define where we have been and where we are going.
Obama’s State Of The Soviet Union
Daniel Greenfield says when the applause had
died down and the softly glowing screen of the teleprompter faded to
black, the echoes of the Leninist cadences of Obama’s State of the Union
address, "We must out-educate, out-compete, and out-innovate the rest of
the world," "We have broken the back of the recession" and "We can’t win
the future with a government of the past" suggest that we are now living
in a land without history.
How else could Obama get up and
deliver an address whose rhetoric represents a 180 degree turn, while
the substance continues down the same track. The meat of the
address was stolen from Clinton’s 1992 campaign stump speeches on the
economy. There is the same invocation of personal stories of
unemployment combined with promises of replacing the old bad
manufacturing jobs with free educations for everyone. But Clinton
was better at pretending to be one of the boys, a working class man who
only got out thanks to a good education. Obama’s people must have
known that dog wouldn’t hunt.
As usual, the slogan du jour comes
from the dictionary of the left. "Winning the future" was a common
slogan on the left. While it was belatedly used by Newt Gingrich,
it was most commonly employed in the 20th century by Communists and the
far left. Two time Lenin prize winner, Danilo Dolci used it as the
theme of one of his addresses. Jesse Jackson made use of it during
his presidential campaign. Max Lerner gave a number of talks on
"Winning the Future". Mandella threw it in there. Most
notably it was used by Lenin, "Our hopes must be placed on the young.
We must win the youth if we are to win the future."
of Obama’s agenda follows Lenin’s. The old jobs are gone. We
must prepare for the future by educating our youth. The sturm und
drang of the "We Musts" quickly becomes an argument for pandering to the
teacher’s unions. Only by empowering the teacher’s union will we
be able to compete with China. But China isn’t strong because of
its teachers, but because it has no independent unions, no minimum wage,
no pollution laws and nothing to get in the way of the terrible machine
of its industry. The People’s Republic of China is not beating us
in science or math, but in manufacturing cheap products with an
undervalued national currency.
Handing out free educations to
beat China is like going to college to fight a bear. Not only will
it not improve your bear fighting skills, it actually gives the bear the
upper hand. American math and science degrees are used to do
research whose practical applications take the form of products
manufactured in China. Even if all 300 million Americans all go to
work as researchers, we are not going to "out-compete" and
"out-innovate" by "out-educating" Americans. Russia has the
highest percentage of college degrees by population in the world.
China has the lowest. These figures have little to do with their
America already has a college degree program
percentage rate on par with Sweden and Finland, countries that almost
wholly subsidize higher educations. Greece subsidizes 99.7 percent
of higher education, and yet has a lower degree rate than America and is
in a state of complete economic meltdown. America has higher rates
of graduates than many of the European countries which heavily subsidize
their education systems. The takeaway is that state subsidized
education does not ensure more graduates. And more graduates does
not mean more jobs.
One of the more surreal moments in the
address came when Obama mentioned Kathy Proctor, a 55 year old woman who
after losing a job in the future industry is now a second year student
at a community college working toward a biotechnology degree. Her
plan is to become a biofuels analyst.
I can’t imagine a worse
model for American workers than a 55 year old woman amassing unknown
amounts of student debt for a job in an industry that doesn’t exist
except as a government subsidized program.
Even if Obama succeeds
in obtaining more ethanol subsidies and some biofuels company decides to
hire Kathy to be their biofuels analyst, her job will only exist because
of the billions poured into subsidizing the educations and industry that
make it possible. A job and an industry that would not exist
without those subsidies. This is not how a genuinely productive
country is run. It’s not how we’re going to beat China.
What’s worse is that the odds are very good that Kathy Proctor will join
the ranks of other struggling Americans whom Obama singled out as
examples, only for them to lose their jobs and homes.
Roger Pilon, the Vice President for Legal
Affairs of the Cato Institute,
says with uncontrolled deficits well into the future and a debt
exceeding $14 trillion, for Obama to propose saving only $40 billion per
year in discretionary spending over the next five years, while
"investing" in pie-in-the-sky things like high-speed rail, wind farms,
environmentally destructive ethanol, and the like is worse than
unserious -- it's an insult to our intelligence. Like Obama, many
Republicans too treat military spending, among other things, as
sacrosanct, but at least they're proposing more serious budget cuts.
The deeper problem, of course, is systemic. Socialism, a large
dose of which we have in America today, brings out the very worst in
people. In the name of collective responsibility, it saps and then
destroys individual responsibility, leading to a war of all against all.
No one wants "his" entitlement cut for fear that his neighbor might
profit at his expense -- because, after all, "we're all in this
together." Suspicion and envy are the order of the day.
Meanwhile, dreamers like Obama (at least that's his pose), who promote
our collective drift, either can't or won't grasp the hard reality until
it crashes down upon them, and us, as it is doing now in several of our
states and in Europe. For the "hard-hearted" realists among us,
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
submits a few humble notes for Obama about where we are today….
During the run up to the recent Congressional elections, I was on
Larry King Live with a super smart man whose name I have forgotten.
Larry asked a smart question. The question was, "Is Barack Obama a
better campaigner than a president?" One of the men on the panel
said, "Of course he is. When he is campaigning, all he has to do
is promise things. When he's president, he actually has to do
The same is true for all politicians, but the problem is
acute for Obama because he has promised things he simply cannot do.
He cannot make the U.S. more competitive with the Far East and with
Germany unless and until he gets U.S. education up to a far better level
than it is at now. He cannot do this without revolutionizing the
lives of young Americans, turning them from sex, drugs, rap, and rock
'n' roll to studying. This is far beyond his poor power to do.
He cannot make an American worker who demands $30 an hour competitive
with a Taiwanese worker who will work for $2 an hour with just as good
equipment. He cannot make American college students who want to
study film production into competitors with Chinese engineers.
(Although I should say that America leads the world in making money off
mass culture because we have by far the most imaginative and creative
people on this planet in this arena living within a small radius in
Southern California. Studying film production is not studying
engineering but for the nation's future, it might be better than
My old dad used to tell me that the reason
U.S. workers could get paid so much more than Far Eastern workers was
that our workers had so much better equipment to work with. This
is not necessarily true any longer, and so our wages must very slowly
move towards parity with Chinese wages. This will be a slow, but
Obama seems to simply not "get it" about solar
power and wind. When we taxpayers spend money to design better
solar and wind power systems, those systems wind up getting made in the
Far East. How this helps our workers is a mystery to me.
also love Obama endlessly referring to "clean coal." There is no
such thing as "clean coal." Coal is coal. They can use all
kinds of technology to immensely reduce pollution from coal. But
there is no such magical thing as "clean coal." This is not a
problem for me at all. I am happy with whatever kind of coal
anyone wants to burn to keep the lights on. But this idea that
there is some magic thing called "clean coal" that is as non-polluting
as wind is just nonsense. It is a bit worrisome to keep hearing
Obama talking about something that is just a fantasy.
Obama's Foreign Policy: Peace Through A
Jed Babbin says every president's foreign
policy is labeled his "doctrine." President Monroe's was that no
European power would be permitted to dominate part of the Western
Hemisphere. President Reagan's was "peace through strength,"
accelerating the demise of the Soviets.
What is the Obama
Doctrine? After two years in the Oval Office, Obama has defined a
doctrine aimed at reducing America from "superpower" to "also-ran."
By shunning allies and empowering enemies, by reducing military
strength, Obama is reducing our ability to protect allies and pursue
interests abroad. Given his record, it's no longer possible to
accuse Obama of naiveté. He is at work pursuing his goal.
Obama revealed this goal in the context of Middle Eastern conflicts,
saying, "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."
America is justly proud of its ability to protect ourselves and allies,
to protect freedom and pursue our interests globally. Not that we
are a force for good.
"Whether we like it or not, we remain a
dominant military superpower." That dominance has kept much of the
world free since World War II. Obama aims to end it.
began implementing his doctrine within days of inauguration. He
symbolically ended the "special relationship" between Britain and
America by inexplicably returning their gift of a bust of Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, which for years had watched over the Oval Office.
Soon after, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited
the White House, Obama treated him as an enemy, not as our only ally in
the Middle East, creating a distrust we cannot afford.
defining moment occurred in June 2009 when the Honduran supreme court
ordered the removal of President Jose Manuel Zelaya for violating the
Honduran constitution by trying to stay in power past his term.
Obama didn't stand with freedom-loving Hondurans and for American
principle. Instead, he sided with Cuban President Raul Castro and
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, condemning the "coup."
Zip says there's something seriously wrong with
Barack Obama getting his information from the Islamist propaganda
The Daily Beast just posted an "exclusive"
look inside the White House’s "scramble" to find the right response to
the unfolding crisis in Egypt this week.
The short version is
that the crisis caught U.S. intelligence off guard and they were slow to
react. But here’s the line that jumped out at me.
That’s right, even the President of the
United States is watching Al Jazeera. Needless to say this is
a far cry from the time (just two years ago!) that Colin Powell
declared on Meet the Press that "those kind of images going out on
Al Jazeera are killing us."
Now, huddled in the big office of their boss -- one
of the administration policy-makers trying to calibrate the U.S.
response to the unfolding drama -- the advisers watched Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak’s first statement. Two television sets
were running, one showing CNN and the other a satellite feed from Al
Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has
Victor Sharpe says Obama is not just content
with creating havoc in the U.S. economy, setting Americans against each
other, and forcing through a health reform act which has nothing to do
with health but everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and
an immense increase in governmental interference, he has now opened a
Pandora's Box in the Middle East. It may well usher in a
catastrophe not seen since World War II.
From his notorious Cairo
speech to the present, Obama speaks, and disaster follows. Some
commentators believe that Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are so
utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to understand what will
happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the Mubarak regime.
The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that
the next regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S.
and the West at heart?
My fear is that Obama is not naïve at
all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is
eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West
and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as a result.
Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power,
usher in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez
Canal, and show no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.
So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has
wrought, and so can our few remaining allies. They must now wonder
what confidence they can ever have in any future alliance with the
says a surprise message from our D.C. Insider reveals an Obama White
House completely unprepared for the events in Egypt, and increasingly
fearful of Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012.
Had to send you this quick message.
Feel free to publish all of it if you wish. First, I am so
disappointed in the response by Obama White House to the crisis in
Egypt. White House was caught completely off guard on this one
despite indications they were informed of just such a scenario a
number of times over the past year or so. They ignored the
warnings. When the protests started did you notice the
confused messaging from the administration? Hillary says one
thing. Biden says another thing. Obama says basically
nothing. These are the situations where an American president
can either rise to the occasion and show strength and wisdom or
where they appear weak and uncertain. I don’t need to explain
to you what our current president did. If this goes badly, and
it appears it very well could, American interests in the region will
be placed in very grave danger. The parallels to Carter are
stunning. Oh how I miss the days when the party was led by the
likes of Scoop. I fear the mishandling of the Egypt situation
is going to result in a total chaos in that country soon.
Obama is clueless. Totally clueless. I am not talking a
little out of step here. I am talking the man has no idea what is
going on around him. This is not coming from me. I am
relaying it from some still around him on a regular basis.
These people are getting increasingly concerned over just how "out
of it," that is the phrase repeated to me, Obama has become.
His primary focus is now getting elected in '12. Everything
else has been given over to Jarrett and her group. Everything.
The president has no interest in policy. None. No
interest in working legislation. None. No interest in
forging a specific agenda. None. He is being told what
he needs to say and that is it. That is the extent of his
interest. "Just make it look good." Exact words right
there. President Obama is obsessed 24/7 with just "looking
good." If something goes well, he gets happy and outgoing.
If something makes him look badly, he lashes out and pouts.
The man is bouncing off both of those extremes even more now than he
used to and it appears to be getting worse and worse. The word
"manic" is being used more and more regarding his moods these days.
FYI there was a closed door meeting recently under the guise of
discussions on Egypt. That meeting did not involve Egypt much
if at all. This information is relayed second hand but I
believe it to be completely reliable. Source told that meeting
was run by Jarrett from start to end. Obama said very little.
Asked no questions. The primary focus was how to protect
ObamaCare so it was not a "liability" in 2012 campaign. White
House already spending significant time/resources preparing legal
argument for the Supreme Court case that is coming. Second
focus was apparently "Birther" related. Jarrett expressed
concern over possible newly passed eligibility requirements in
states. If only one or two states clarify eligibility in order
to run for office, White House will simply use those states as
examples of "anti-Obama racism." They would likely not win the
electorals in those states regardless, but could use the scenario to
gain sympathy and support over the challenge from other moderate
states. This is the tactic Jarrett and crew have prepared.
She is worried though that if more than one or two states challenge
the president’s eligibility, the issue would turn against them.
Measures are being taken to make certain that does not happen.
What those measures are, I don’t know at this point. Oh, and
while discussion over eligibility was underway, Obama sat
motionless. He said nothing. That strikes me as pretty
damn odd don’t you think? People are discussing whether or not
you are actually eligible to run for re-election in 2012 and you
don’t say a word on the subject? "He just sat there with a
weird little smile and didn’t say anything." Go ahead and
print that quote word for word. Others are now willing to let
their observations be more known. Concern for the country is
now winning over concern for their own political interests.
As stated before, Geithner is leaving. That
was repeated to me again this past week.
More to come soon.
Jim Hoft has
a video in which an Iowa
Republican focus group ripped Obama over his handling of the Egyptian
crisis. Nearly half of the focus group members believed that Obama
was acting against the interests of the United States because he was a
Muslim. The other half believed he was a committed liberal.
They all agreed his presidency was a disaster.
asks us to remember when everyone was calling George W. Bush stupid?
I do. Since then, his published memoir of his years in the White House
has been on the bestseller lists following two years of Barack Obama
unrelenting blunders and lies.
From the beginning of the Obama
administration, there were all manner of evidence that a group of
hapless, moronic ideologues had been handed the reins of power.
Early nominees for key posts were jettisoned or withdrew from
consideration for a variety of reasons. This was followed by a
huge overlay of "czars" for everything, with undefined power over and
above the Cabinet Secretaries in charge of various departments.
Two years later, the candidate who campaigned against the Iraq war
decisions and implementation, against Guantanamo, and deemed Afghanistan
to be the "real war" is pursuing the same Bush programs. The
general credited with victory in Iraq has been put in charge of
Afghanistan and not been heard from since.
When the Iranians
protested in the streets of Tehran last year, Obama missed a major
opportunity to throw U.S. support behind them. Instead he said he
did not want to "meddle" in Iran’s internal affairs. Fast forward
to Egypt and President Stupid was declaring on worldwide television that
President Mubarak had to go "now." Well, he’s gone and, thank God,
the military is still in charge.
Surrounded by imbeciles and
ideologues, President Stupid’s national security director declared that
the MUSLIM Brotherhood was a "secular" organization. His science
advisor thinks all the ice at the North Pole is melting. His EPA
Director thinks that carbon dioxide, a gas vital to all life on earth,
is a "pollutant" and is asserting the authority to regulate it.
In both the first and second State of the Union speeches, President
Stupid rambled on about green jobs, solar and wind energy, and now the
need to spend billions on a "high speed" rail system in a nation where
Amtrak has been losing money from the day it opened for business.
In a time of severe deficits and national debt, how dumb do you have to
be to want to throw billions at an unneeded new rail system?
President Stupid’s decisions have frequently left people gasping in
disbelief. He appointed "a wise Latina", Sonia Sotomayor, to the
Supreme Court even though she had never been a judge.
is the pinnacle of President Stupid’s "achievements" thus far. It
has been declared unconstitutional by two lower courts and is likely to
be declared null and void by the Supreme Court before he leaves office.
The House Budget Committee just released a report that estimates the
loss of 800,000 jobs if it becomes law. You have to be stupid to
keep handing out "waivers" to ObamaCare in all directions as an
admission of its failure to apply only to those who do not have friends
in the White House.
You have to be stupid to keep defending
"global warming" or "climate change" when this huge, global hoax was
exposed in 2009 as a fraud. Meanwhile, a natural cooling cycle is
caused freezing weather that just wiped out 80-100% of Mexico’s crops.
You have to be stupid to openly declare that you want to drive the
coal industry out of business when it provides half of all the
electricity the nation uses every day, but that is precisely what
President Stupid’s administration is doing.
You have to be stupid
to declare a moratorium on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico after
courts have twice told you to remove it.
You have to be stupid to
lecture the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on how to create jobs when your
economic policies have been killing them for two years. And then
tell them they have to redistribute their profits to their workers.
They already do that. It’s called wages!
You have to be
stupid to have spent the first two years of Sundays playing golf and
then expect people to believe you are deeply religious.
to be stupid to keep bowing to foreign leaders of nations from Saudi
Arabia to Japan to China when the President of the United States must
never bow to anyone. We don’t even lower our flag in the presence
of foreign leaders.
You have to be stupid to believe you can get
away with telling lies when even an adoring press is finding it
increasingly difficult to cover up or defend this behavior.
now as the press begins the run-up to the 2012 elections by emphasizing
how brilliant President Stupid really is.
Already the talk is
about a surefire reelection if the unemployment rates gets down to eight
percent when its average over the pre-Obama years has usually been
around five percent and actual unemployment is twice the official figure
of 9.6 percent.
You have to be stupid to think Americans will be
Geithner Admits: Obama's Obligations
From Thursday’s Senate
Budget Committee’s hearings on Obama’s ten year budget, via YouTube:
Sessions: Let’s talk, briefly, as my
time is winding down, about our interest situation under your
budget. The interest increases each year. It was $187
billion in 2009. Under your proposal it increases to $844
billion -- I don’t know if we have a chart here -- and would you not
agree that that is a stunning figure, perhaps the fastest growing
item in it? And all of that is a direct result of the debt
we’re running up and only a modest expectation of interest rate
Geithner: Senator, absolutely. It
is a excessively high interest burden. It’s unsustainable.
Sessions: Well it’s your plan, for the ten years. I
mean, that’s the one the President has submitted. That’s what
he’s asked us to vote on. It will result -- and that is your
numbers of your budget.
you’re absolutely right. With the President’s plan, even if
Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it,
and reduce those deficits to 3% percent of GDP over the next five
years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and
unsustainable obligations over time. That’s why we’re having
the debate, I completely agree with you. But the question
though is, just to be direct about it, what’s the alternative plan.
And again, the way our system works, this is a good thing.
You’re going to see, we’ll be able to see from this body, we’ll be
able to see from the House, whether people can find the political
will here to go deeper, and if you can find --
But what your plan is, is that plan. It’s the one you’re
required by law to submit, and that’s what you call for, and it’s
not acceptable. I’m sorry. It’s not a plan for winning
the future, but for losing the future…
There it is. The Secretary of the US Treasury
and the de facto head of administration’s economic team admits that the
budget Obama has just submitted is completely unsustainable.
So why even submit it? Isn’t submitting an unsustainable
budget tantamount to dereliction of duty?
As Senator Sessions
notes, so much for "winning the future."
In this video,
in search of a straight answer on the Obama's budget, Rep. Woodall
finally put the question as plainly as he could:
"This budget never, ever, ever reduces
the debt, is that right?"
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner replied:
"Uh... that is correct."
Related:David Stockman Says Obama’s
Budget Is "Fiscal Cowardice"
What is unsaid, is that Obama is
lying to America about his budget. He has no respect for the
office, and he has he no respect for the American People.
The Many Paradoxes Of Barack Obama
Victor Davis Hanson
says that when Obama called for a new civility, I was somewhat
confused. In 2004–7, the uncivil demagoguery of the Left damaged
Bush; immediately after Obama’s call for civility, someone wrote an "I
hate Joe Lieberman" column; now, Governor Walker–Nazi signs have
appeared in Madison. Given that the country polls center-right,
the hysterical style is something that the modern Left uses to
counteract public opinion; Obama has condemned a methodology that is
predominately embraced by his own hard-core base. (Indeed,
swarming someone’s private home, or using terms like "enemy" and
"punish," are not unknown to either the younger or older Obama.)
The result is the hypocrisy of condemning the incivility that will only
become more useful to the Left as the election nears
Middle East, Obama seems not to grasp the central paradox, analogous to
Jeane Kirkpatrick’s in the Cold War: The relatively pro-American
authoritarians (in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and the Gulf) are more
vulnerable than the anti-American and far more savage totalitarian
regimes (Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.), at least for now, because the latter
are more willing to blockade the international media and to use brutal
force to crack down on popular protests. Not only has the
administration not appreciated how this paradox may change the strategic
map of the Middle East to the detriment of U.S. interests, but it almost
seems to consider the more anti-American regimes more sustainable,
untouchable, and authentic, and their protesters tainted with
Westernization. I don’t know how else to explain the
administration’s otherwise inexplicable failure to support Iranian
dissidents in 2009, or its harsh attitude toward Mubarak versus its mild
treatment of Ahmadinejad, or its efforts to reach out to a rogue Syria
while pulling back from a democratic Israel.
At some point,
Obama will have to see what Gov. Jerry Brown here in California has
already realized: Out-of-whack public-employee compensation and pensions
drain the treasury and preclude grandiose green projects and other
dubious liberal programs. To put it rather crassly, the liberal
calculus often works out as mostly older white guys wanting their
unsustainable pension and benefit payouts while the "other" and the more
needy are shorted from receiving proper public attention. Since
the states cannot print money and often lose population to other states
when they raise taxes, the reality is that the well-off are enjoying
perks that younger and private-sector workers lack while social services
and the green visions of an Al Gore or a 2008 Obama are defunded.
Finally, what distinguishes Obama’s homespun platitudes about
public-sector jobs from state governors’ more honest worries is just
that ability to print cash -- together with the fact that Americans
cannot migrate to a kindred but lower-tax nation, in the fashion
overtaxed Californians flee to Texas or Utah. But pass a law that
the U.S. must balance its books like the states must, or have something
like a workable, low-tax Singapore off our shores, and Obama would start
sounding like a Governor Brown, Christie, or Walker.
Telling It Like It Is
"Our Peace Prize-winning president is very
busy bowing these days to kings. He is bending down to
dictators, and he is brown-nosing the elites that are in Europe, and
he’s babying the jihadists who are following Sharia-compliant
terrorism. He is callow and confused and inconsistent in his
response to the Egyptian crisis, and to the uprisings in Iran, and
to the terrorist threats. And he’s accomplishing something
nobody thought even possible: He’s making Jimmy Carter look like a
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN),
quoted by the Spartanburg Herald Journal during a visit to South
Obama's Agenda Faces Governors' Revolt
says to picture a hand on the wheel of the great ship of state,
pushing it hard in a certain direction, say, to the left. It
belongs to Obama. Picture 29 smaller ones on the other side of the
wheel, trying as hard as they can to wrench it back in the other
direction. Those hands belong to Govs. Chris Christie, R-N.J.,
Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., Scott Walker, R-Wis., and 26 other Republican
governors, 12 of them elected in the 2009 and 2010 cycles.
years and four months ago, Obama was elected to enact his agenda; and
four months ago, the Republicans were put in to dismantle it. In
the interim, the public had a big change of mind, which created the
impasse. Each side has a mandate, and is hell-bent upon it,
creating a situation unique in our history. For the first time
since the Civil War ended, the federal government and a large number of
the states and their governors are at open and few-holds-barred war.
States and their governors defying the White House, is, of course,
nothing new. In the 19th century, the United States survived three
different secessionist movements, the first two involving Aaron Burr (in
1804 and 1807), and the Southern secession 60 years later, that gave us
a long, bloody war.
In the 1950s and '60s, some Southern
governors stood "in the door of the schoolhouse," but those acts of
defiance were regional, racist, and doomed. None of these
instances serves as a guide to this new breed of battlers.
Despite thinking in terms of nullification and interposition (made
famous by John C. Calhoun in an earlier fracas), this new states' rights
movement has no plans whatever for leaving the Union.
prior movements, it is based on neither region nor race: It runs from
Alaska through the upper Midwest, down to the two southernmost bastions
of Texas and Florida; it is strong in the red states, and in purple and
blue ones: It is home to the male and the female, the pale and the
brown, the WASP and the ethnic, the urban and rural, the fat and the
lean: to Gov. Susana Martinez, R-N.M., and to Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va.;
to New Jersey's Christie, and to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; to Gov.
Nikki Haley, R-S.C., and to Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.; to good old
boys and to children of darker-hued immigrants.
composition is different, so is its operational strategy. Instead
of raising armies, it is raising objections. It fires off
lawsuits, not guns.
Twenty-six states have filed 24 law suits,
aimed at declaring ObmaCare unconstitutional, which one court in Florida
has already done. Scarcely a day goes by without one governor or
another tossing sand in the gears of Obama's agenda.
Carolina's Haley is in Obama's face constantly. Gov. Sean Parnell,
R-Alaska, says he won't start enforcing ObamaCare, as the court in
Florida has labeled it unconstitutional.
Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla.,
says "no, thank you," to Obama's plans for light rail. And
Wisconsin's Walker has started a war with Obama, confronting his
The GOP gains in the House were as stunning as
those in the state houses, but the House is one-half of one branch of
the federal government, and can only stop things, not start. This
is why the lead in confronting Obama has passed to the governors, who,
on the day they take office, have the power they need to make policy.
This is why the war has moved to, and outside of, the state capitols.
"States' rights" may be saving the party of Lincoln. And what
could be stranger than that?
Alfred E. President
Barack Obama resembles, more and more, the hapless, clueless, sappily
cheerful mascot of MAD Magazine, Alfred E.. Newman. Given the
intellectual vacuity of his life so far, attending schools and working
in "jobs" that did not require a single original thought or even more
exercise in critical thinking, it is increasingly hard to determine
whether our illustrious leader actually grasps the profound seriousness
of civilized life today.
Our national debt is exploding.
Right now it is only a measly $45,000 per person, but it is growing
fast. This does not just mean the federal government faces
political problems with gigantic deficit "investment" appropriations,
but it also means that no one wants to buy our government debt
instruments any longer. Simply paying the interest on that federal
debt is becoming harder. The value of the dollar and the credit of
the government are both dropping precipitously. States cannot pay
their "bills" (i.e. lawful obligations.) When high unemployment
rates are the way to control our porous borders and illegal immigration
problem, then the long term prognosis for our nation is much grimmer
than the calm demeanor of Alfred E. President would suggest.
Europe, the other half of our
bastion of Western Civilization, faces comparable unraveling.
Public pensions in nations like Greece are simply unsustainable.
Ireland, the once thriving Celtic Tiger, not only needs a Euro bailout,
but the Bank of Ireland, on its own, simply began printing Euros.
Belgium has lesser but serious economic problems, but the longest
European nation unable to form a government must deal also with the
ethnic schisms in an artificial nation half Walloon and half Flemish.
What does one call a bank which essentially begins counterfeiting money
and a democracy which cannot form a government? Well, to everyone
outside the world of Alfred E. President, one calls that "a clue."
Angry young Moslem men continue their thuggish conquest of the
European street. The docile, graying population of homegrown
Europeans no longer cares to defend its Judeo-Christian heritage or its
continental culture. The economic disintegration, which seems so
near the edge in much of Europe, will not inspire these Moslems to pick
up the heavy burden of pensions caused by a declining indigenous
European population. The bitter young men of Islam will, instead,
compete with white haired Frenchmen for the shrinking pie of social
welfare benefits. Does Alfred E.. President seem concerned?
He is concerned only in the vague, rhetorical sense that concern can be
traded in for modest bumps in personal approval ratings.
friendly government on peaceful terms with Israel, will soon be run by
those less friendly to us and more threatening to Israel. China
builds more modern weapons which have only one possible use.
Russia cozies up to anyone who does not like us. NATO resembles a
vestigial organ which does not protect our nation and which "talks" with
Russia about a missile defense system which will not threaten Russia’s
national security -- how a missile defense shield or a bulletproof vest
threatens anyone remains a grand mystery of life. Iran, meanwhile,
moves closer to the day that it can turn Tel Aviv into radioactive dust.
What will regional terrorism mean to us? The semi-official
attitude over the last decade has been that our nation faces another
massive terrorist attack not "if," but "when." But it has not
happened yet, so Alfred E.. President smiles at the television monitor
and likes what he sees.
All over the simmering mess we call our
world, the persecution of Christians continues. Every "victory" --
Christian massacres in Egypt or Pakistan or Nigeria, bigoted federal
court rulings against crosses at military cemeteries or smug, mendacious
defamations of Christianity -- kicks the can farther down the road to
perdition. Anti-Semitism, the other canary in the mineshaft,
surrounds Israel, inspires militant Moslems everywhere, and encourages
an increasingly miserable world to blame its oldest official scapegoat.
Those two nations lovingly called the "Great Satan" and the "Little
Satan" needs no defense from Alfred E. President, even though a spirited
argument supporting America and Israel might defang the lust for their
destruction. The plight of Jews and Christians is not helped in
these lands by skyrocketing food costs produced, at least in part, by
undue interest in the Iowa caucus.
What could Alfred E..
President do? He could ask for a repeal of ObamaCare so that a
truly bipartisan healthcare reform could be adopted. He could
propose entitlement reforms, rather than waiting to counter-punch any
Republican proposals. He could insist that missile defense be the
heart of our defense budget. He could ask for a comprehensive
reduction of all federal requirements on states and all existing federal
roadblocks to growth, so that drilling for oil and construction of
nuclear power plants could start oh, say, yesterday. He could call
Ethanol a joke no longer so funny. He could issue a spirited
re-affirmation of the faith of Christians and Jews and express the
opinion that holding fast to that heritage is the only true hope of
Or Alfred E. President can watch the world unravel
on his watch. He can fiddle while Rome burns. He can say
nothing risky, do nothing real, and wait to be re-elected. What
are our prospects for having a real president when we need him? So
far, so bad.
The Manchurian President
says events in the world are spinning Barack Obama around like a
top. Barack Obama is ill-suited to be the President of the United
States. His worldly sense is really only that of a Chicago mayor,
but what Obama really should have been was the Secretary General of the
UN. There he could pontificate, bluster, moralize and agonize all
without meaning or intent. He could carry on the UN legacy of
uselessness and failure and likely scoop up another Nobel Peace Prize
for achieving nothing, to bookend his first Nobel Peace Prize for
I have been to Israel five times and each
visit remains a fond memory. Today I spoke with a friend from
Israel. He is totally disgusted with Obama. He noted that
one day Obama supported Mubarak and the next day told Mubarak to leave.
I said that I was quite concerned about Israel’s safety but my friend is
confident in Israel’s ability to defend itself. However, he knows
as well as many of us that sooner or later someone is going to have to
decapitate the nuclear monster in Iran. We all know that Barack
Obama will neither come to the defense of Israel nor act on Iran.
Barack Obama is a political eunuch. World events cry for
leadership and Barack Obama wails about collective bargaining, all the
while interfering in a state issue in which he has no business.
Obama’s response to the crisis in Libya is to fire up a Motown party in
When the protests for democracy arose in Iran,
Barack Obama dithered. He uttered some nonsense about standing
with those seeking democracy, saying: "And we stand behind those
who are seeking justice in a peaceful way."
The problem is that
Barack Obama gives disingenuous a bad name. He is an execrable
liar. When he could have done the most good for those seeking
change in Iran, he voted present. Amid allegations of fraud in the
recent Iranian elections, Republicans are criticizing Obama for not
personally addressing violence against the protesters demonstrating on
behalf of opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi.
took place in Egypt, he voted present.
When bloodshed takes
place in Libya, Obama voted present.
Energy prices are
skyrocketing and Barack Obama has diminished our domestic energy supply
and made us even more dependent on foreign oil. He has shut off
new searches for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and has curtailed several
functional rigs. The Obama administration has been ordered to
resume the granting of oil drilling permits but has not done so and has
even been found in contempt, not that that matters. As noted here,
Barack Obama picks and choose what laws he wants to uphold and screw the
Meanwhile, pretty much everyone in the world is drilling
in the Gulf except for the United States and at the same time the United
States is financing drilling in the Gulf by Petrobas of Brazil.
Obama submitted a budget he knows fully well will put this country on a
course to oblivion.
It seems that union leaders are the shadow
Presidents of the US and Obama has taken to meeting with lobbyists in
secret places so we cannot know who owns Obama at the moment.
listen to people tell me how much Obama cares and how he really wants
what’s best for the US, but I'm not buying it. He is either
a blithering idiot or he is trying to destroy this country.
thing is sure: his messianic hubris is killing us. If he was
proven to be the Manchurian President I doubt he could visit more damage
on us. One wonders whether Obama would support a peaceful change
of leadership here in the United States. I am ready for change.
The 51% President
says that when Americans voted in Barack Obama in 2008, they thought
they were getting a "post-racial," "post-partisan" president. For
Barack Obama himself had declared that having merely won the Democratic
nomination, "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began
to heal." What Americans didn’t realize however was that Barack
Obama was only to represent certain subsets of the population; this new
era of good feeling was only to be for those of a select few classes,
races and ethnicities. This was to be a world in which all of the
old injustices would be righted not by tolerance for all, but with
intolerance for the presumed intolerant, with the vengeful Barack Obama
correcting past wrongs with his redistributive justice.
And so in
America today if you are black, a union member, Muslim, Hispanic, gay
and/or profligate you can expect preferential treatment from this
administration. For most everyone else, tough luck. I know
of no other way to interpret the pattern of the words and actions of
Obama and his cronies. We need not judge Obama on the Bill Ayers,
Edward Said/Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright influences. The
true instincts of this administration show quite clearly in its
deafening silence on so many true injustices, only to be outdone by its
knee-jerk reactions to issues either not germane to it, or on which it
consistently sides against the majority of Americans.
fact that Obama cannot help but interject when it comes to the actions
of a white cop in Cambridge, a mosque being built by Islamic
supremacists near Ground Zero, a Governor trying to return his state to
fiscal sanity by taking on an obfuscatory union or the evil fat cats
trying to make their undeserved profits, nor can Eric Holder admit that
perhaps even the word "jihad" exists, let alone that the
nightstick-wielding Black Panthers in Philadelphia were anything more
than "inappropriate," though they threatened the citizenry in the very
way that his "people" were threatened decades ago. The notion of
the keeper of justice defending above all his "people" poses a challenge
to Justice Sotomayor’s wise Latina women quip in the volumes it speaks
with regard to the "soft" bigotry of this administration.
administration does not represent the people, but only the narrow
majority which elected it, save for a handful of Independents they have
thrown under the bus along the way. But as Lenin said, "if you
want to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break a few eggs."
Equal justice for all and special privileges for none is a credo as
foreign as a Tea Partier to this White House. Every policy is
biased towards one group at the expense of others, created with the
intent to rectify some grievance often imperceptible to any
free-thinking, right-minded individual. The public is viewed
solely in terms of groups to be molded, conditioned and manipulated, as
opposed to individuals free to choose their own destiny.
is to challenge Obama must be constantly cognizant of and able to
articulate that a president’s proper role is to serve as a
representative of all of the people, not just the 51% or so of voters
necessary to win; he or she must understand that the policies that leave
our people happiest, healthiest and most prosperous are those which
serve to benefit all, equally (generally policies that restrain
government). The challenger must create an undeniable contrast to
Obama, whose whole term has served as an Ivy League seminar in class
warfare, race-baiting, suicidal multiculturalism and moral relativism,
victimhood and submission.
How ironic it is that the man supposed
to embody a world devoid of discrimination, a man supposed to be beyond
our petty differences fashions policies and asserts himself in ways that
universally prove discriminatory. Forget the other 49%, this is
the 51% president. Let’s make sure that that number is reduced
Let's Make Obama King
John Hinderaker says Last night Col. Ralph
Peters was on Bill O'Reilly's show, talking about Libya. Peters
thinks we should act on behalf of the rebels there, but he expressed
skepticism that Obama will ever do anything. "Obama loves the idea
of being President," Peters said, "but he can't make a decision."
I think there is a lot of truth to that, even in domestic policy,
where Obama has passively deferred to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on all
legislative matters. One can debate whether action is appropriate
in Libya or not, but Peters is certainly right when it comes to foreign
policy -- it is a safe bet that Obama will do nothing, because doing
something would require a decision.
That got me thinking: Obama
enjoys being president, and he especially treasures the symbolic
significance of being the first African-American president. That's
how his supporters feel, too. I haven't heard anyone defend his actual
performance in a long time, but there is still widespread satisfaction
with the symbolic value of his presidency. So why don't we make
him king? If being the first African-American president has
symbolic value, just think what it would mean for the first King of the
United States to be African-American! Plus, Michelle would be a queen
and Malia and Sasha would be princesses. How cool would that be?
I realize that there are constitutional issues with establishing a
new office of kingship, but they are nothing that couldn't be cured with
a hastily-called constitutional convention. The king would have no
duties beyond golf, so Obama would be perfect for the job. Our
king would need a place to live, of course -- we need to coax Obama out
of the White House -- so I'm thinking one of those big houses in
Newport, Rhode Island would be ideal. Safely out of the way.
Then we could hold a special election and choose a real president.
Probably, given the temper of the times, he or she would be a
Republican. On no account would our new constitutional arrangement
allow Joe Biden to succeed Obama. He would make a terrific
viceroy, or possibly court jester.
Sure, it seems like a radical
solution. But consider the alternative. The more I think
about it, the better I like it: Obama for King!
An Absence Of Leadership In A Dangerous
The Region Rat
says as a follow-up to my post on "followership," a bit of
no-nonsense commentary is in order. No sarcasm or jabs at Obama;
just bottom-line analysis. As is always the case, opposing views
are welcome and encouraged.
Democratic Strategist Doug Schoen,
who is respected on both sides of the political spectrum recently
commented on the workings of Barrack Obama’s mind:
strategy is to "keep your distance, avoid direct engagement, say most of
the right things most of the time, and hope for resolution through
sources other than your own."
We saw this with the events in
Wisconsin. Initially, conservatives were angered; not as much by Obama’s
refusal to call for an end to the impasse as with his cheerleading of
the unionists from the sidelines while chastising the opposition.
Ultimately, it was those on the left who felt betrayed; he had said "all
the right things," they reasoned; where was he when it mattered?
We now see it with the crisis in Libya; innocent people have died and
are continuing to do so while an ever-cautious Obama seeks consensus and
"one (world) voice." Community organizers seek consensus.
Community organizers seek compromise. Presidents of the United
States lead when leadership is required.
In Obama’s world view,
strong American leadership demonstrates arrogance and an imposition of
our will. He views the ability to form consensus and delegate
decisions as more desirable traits. America did not become America
by building world consensus and delegating difficult decisions,
particularly during calamitous times or events that cried out for
Throughout history, countries and peoples in
distress have looked to the United States for leadership; there was a
belief that we would be bold; that we would go where others would not go
and do what others would not do.
This is not Barack Obama.
His inability to lead is both regrettable and dangerous. If
history has taught us anything, it is this: When extraordinary men step
forward during extraordinary times, they do extraordinary things.
Obama’s lack of leadership increases the potential for danger in a
very dangerous world as he seeks to diminish the role of America.
Sadly, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
Obama, Get Off The Bench
A.B. Stoddard says that even before a member of
his own party scolded him on the floor of the U.S. Senate for failing to
lead, it was already past time for Obama to get into the game on budget
reform that tackles entitlements and the tax code. He ignored the
recommendations of his own debt commission, gave lip service to the
burden of mandatory spending in his State of the Union address, and then
introduced a budget that confirmed he would indeed dodge the hard stuff.
Yet while Obama willfully completed his third strike in another round of
politics-as-usual, the unthinkable has happened. All around him,
Republicans and Democrats are gripping the third rail, delving openly
into a discussion of entitlement reform. Will Obama show the same
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has approved the
inclusion of entitlement reform in the budget House that Republicans
will release in April, has offered an unusual olive branch to Obama.
He will refrain from attacking any proposal he offers to curb
entitlement spending. Boehner told The Wall Street Journal that
Obama "knows the numbers as well as we do," but that most Americans
"don’t have a clue" that entitlement spending consumes more than half
our budget and is the primary driver of our debt. Boehner and
House Republicans will seek to educate voters in hopes that "people will
be more receptive to what the possible solutions are."
effort is under way in the Senate, where a bipartisan "Gang of Six" is
advocating entitlement and tax reform and possibly tax increases to
address our fiscal crisis. And Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a
Democratic leader, declared in a speech Wednesday that discretionary
cuts alone won’t reduce the deficit, calling for an "all of the above"
approach in budget reform negotiations he said the White House should
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that even
though only 18 percent of respondents thought cuts to Medicare were
necessary to "significantly reduce" the deficit, 62 percent of them
thought means-testing Medicare and Social Security was "totally
acceptable" and 56 percent supported raising the retirement age for
Social Security to 69 by 2075. That is an opening Obama must take
advantage of, because Republicans will do so with or without him.
Republicans are currently winning the optics campaign in the budget
battle -- producing yet another temporary plan this week to keep the
government open before the Democrats have even produced one.
Obama’s refusal to join the growing chorus on curbing mandatory spending
opens him up to a steady barrage of criticism from Democrats like Sen.
Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who castigated Obama in his floor speech, as well
as Republicans. When asked this weekend by Bob Schieffer of CBS
News if he thought Obama was serious about entitlement reform, Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, despite several
conversations with the president, "No, I don’t."
There is nothing
partisan about Republicans insisting that entitlement reform can only
pass with the support of both parties and presidential leadership.
And so it is time for Obama to come to the table, no matter what the
left and the labor unions are threatening. When Obama campaigned
for his job, he said solving the nation’s worst problems "will take a
president who is honest about the challenges we face -- who doesn’t just
tell everyone what they want to hear, but what they need to hear."
Republicans and Democrats are now eager to tell Americans about the
fiscal challenges we face. Obama must join in soon so he can lead.
If he waits too long, voters will remember that he followed.
Obama The Invisible
John Podhoretz asks, where is Barack Obama? The
world is beset. Moammar Khadafy is moving relentlessly to crush the
Libyan revolt that once promised the overthrow of one of the world's
most despicable regimes. So where is Obama?
Japan may be on the
verge of a disaster that dwarfs any we have yet seen. A self-governing
nation like the United States needs its leader to take full measure of
his position at times of crises when the path forward is no longer
clear. This is not a time for leadership; this is the time for
leadership. So where is Barack Obama?
The moment demands that he
rise to the challenge of showing America and the world that he is taking
the reins. How leaders act in times of unanticipated crisis, in which
they do not have a formulated game plan and must instead navigate in
treacherous waters, defines them.
Obama is defining himself in a
way that will destroy him.
It is not merely that he isn't rising
to the challenge. He is avoiding the challenge. He is Bartleby the
President. He would prefer not to.
He has access to a microphone
24 hours a day, seven days a week. If he tells the broadcast networks in
the middle of the day that he has a major address to deliver on an
unprecedented world situation, they will cancel their programming for
him. And yet, since Friday and a press conference in which he managed to
leave the American position on Libya more muddled than it was before, we
have not heard his voice. Except in a radio address -- he talked about
And he appeared at a fund-raiser in DC. And sat down with ESPN to reveal
his NCAA picks.
He cannot go on
like this. Niall Ferguson, the very pessimistic economic historian,
wrote the other day that the best we can now hope for is that Obama
leaves the country in the same kind of shape that Jimmy Carter left it
says the Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding
from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United
States, but none of this seems to be deterring Barack Obama from a heavy
schedule of childish distractions.
The newly installed tandem of
White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior Adviser David
Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to
the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase
himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.
This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially
catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA
tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to
find out who he likes.
Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the
golf course, and got back to the White House with just enough time for a
quick shower before heading out to party with Washington’s elite
journalists at the annual Gridiron Dinner.
With various urgencies
swirling about him, Saturday’s weekly videotaped presidential address
focusing on "Women’s History Month" seemed bizarrely out of touch.
Obama Friday took time out to honor the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion
Chicago Blackhawks. Thursday was a White House conference on
bullying -- not a bad idea perhaps, but not quite Leader of the Free
World stuff either.
Obama appeared a little sleepy as he weighed
in against the bullies, perhaps because he’d spent the night before
partying with lawmakers as they took in a Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte
Meanwhile, Obama has been studying for weeks
whether to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya, delaying action while the
point becomes increasingly moot as Qaddafi begins to defeat and
slaughter his opponents. And lawmakers from both Parties are
wondering why he seems to be AWOL in the deficit reduction debate.
The Libya indecision follows an inconsistent response to the
protests that ousted former Egyptian President Mubarak and seemed to
catch the White House off guard. The perfunctory response from the
White House Monday to Saudi Arabia’s dispatch of troops to Bahrain
suggested the administration wasn’t prepared for that one either.
But the fun stuff won’t end anytime soon. On Thursday, the
Taoiseach of Ireland will be in town to help Obama celebrate St.
Patrick’s Day. And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of
a three-country Latin American tour.
Oddly, he’ll be missing
Carnival, which went down last week.
Obama Faces Political Storm Over Libya When
Fox News says Obama can't hold off Congress
In the form of hearings, media appearances and
possibly a vote, Congress is determined to have its say on the Libyan
conflict when lawmakers return to Washington next week.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been grumbling ever since the
president ordered U.S. missile strikes on Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime in
support of a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone Saturday. But the unrest is
reaching a boiling point and from the top down, elected officials are
pressing for questions about the U.S. role in the assault to get a full
airing on Capitol Hill next week. The coalition's involvement deepened
after French fighter jets shot down a Libyan plane amid allegations
Qaddafi's forces violated the no-fly zone.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich,
D-Ohio, sent a letter to Obama Thursday announcing his intention to
offer an amendment stripping the Libya operation of funding. Rep. Bruce
Braley, D-Iowa, also wrote a letter asking Obama for a full accounting
of the mission's costs.
"We must know how much a third military
conflict will cost us," he wrote.
Obama Gets Transparency Award Behind Closed
Simon Neville is reporting that Barack Obama
accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent in
a secret ceremony.
The White House even left the event off
Obama’s public schedule, so no one knew about it, and requests for
journalists to cover the meeting by those attending were turned down.
"To have such a meeting not be transparent is the height of irony. How absurd can that be?" said one participant, Gary Bass, executive
director of OMB Watch, which keeps tabs on the White House Office of
Management and Budget.
He added: "It’s almost a theater of the
absurd to have an award on transparency that isn’t transparent. I hope
that this blunder falls into what I call the 'klutz' category of
A Clueless Presidency Adrift In A Sea Of
says this week’s Quinnipiac University national poll should be
devastating reading for the White House, against a background of
mounting confusion over Libya, paralysis in the face of a massive
national debt and deep-seated economic problems, and a possible shutdown
of Congress. Liberal hopes of an Obama recovery in the first half
of 2012 following disastrous midterm elections in November are proving
short-lived. According to the Quinnipiac survey, Obama is now at
the lowest approval level of his presidency, with his weakest reelect
According to a Quinnipiac University poll, American
voters disapprove, 48 to 42 percent, of the job Barack Obama is doing,
and say, 50 to 41 percent, he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012.
Both are all-time lows. This compares to a 46 to 46 percent job
approval rating and a 45 to 47 percent split on Obama’s re-election in a
March 3 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University. In a
hypothetical 2012 matchup, Obama gets 36 percent of the vote to 37
percent for an unnamed Republican challenger.
strong negativity ratings for his handling of virtually all key issues,
including the economy, budget deficit, health care, foreign policy and
energy policy. According to Quinnipiac, on the economy 60 percent
of Americans disapprove of his performance, including more than a
quarter of Democrats. That figure rises to 64 percent on the
budget deficit. On health care, less than 40 percent of Americans
back Obama, with 55 percent opposing. On foreign policy, 47
percent disapprove of his handling, compared to just 41 percent in
favor, with only two in five Americans approving of his leadership of
the Libya issue.
The Quinnipiac poll chimes with Rasmussen’s
latest Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, which gives Obama an approval
index rating of minus 18 points, with 42 percent of Americans strongly
disapproving of his performance (against 24 percent strongly approving).
On the Libyan issue, which is dominating much of the news coverage at
the moment in the United States, Rasmussen finds that only 21 percent of
likely voters think the United States "has a clearly defined mission in
Libya", with 56 percent disagreeing.
RealClearPolitics polling average shows nearly two thirds of Americans
(63 percent) believing the country is on "the wrong track," a staggering
34 percent higher than the number that believe it is heading in "the
right direction." This is not exactly the kind of hope and change
that Americans were promised when Barack Obama was elected 29 months
At the core of Obama’s declining fortunes is his lack of
leadership, both at home and abroad. Obama’s widely criticized
dithering over Libya has reinforced the impression of a White House
adrift in a sea of confusion, as the world’s only superpower seems
incapable of projecting decisiveness on the world stage, while failing
at the same time to confront the nation’s biggest economic crisis in
decades in the shape of towering debts and European-levels of
unemployment. The Quinnipiac poll should be a wake-up call for a
politician deeply out of touch with an increasingly disillusioned
electorate. But unfortunately there is little sign he is
The "Obama Factor"
says that inside the whirlwind of the Middle East's current turmoil,
it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Obama's original strategy for the region has crashed and burned. Recall
its key elements. Extending a hand to Iran's mullahs so as to
demonstrate America's benign intentions and charm Khomeini's heirs into
abandoning their nuclear ambitions. "Engaging" Syria's tyranny in
hopes of luring it away from a decades-long embrace of Iran, terrorism,
and anti-Americanism. Indulging the canard that the Palestinian
conflict lies at the root of all that ails the Middle East; that Israeli
settlements pose the most pressing obstacle to peace; and that
demonstrating American even-handedness by muscling our Israeli ally
would win us goodwill across the Arab/Muslim world. Refuting the
"freedom agenda" by slashing democratization programs and letting it be
known that a hard-nosed realism had returned to U.S. foreign policy that
would concern itself little with the way Middle Eastern regimes treat,
or mistreat, their own peoples. And, of course, putting in
America's rearview mirror as quickly as possible an Iraq project that
had been midwifed by an allegedly illegal and immoral war.
it now lies largely in tatters. Obama's outreach to Iran and Syria
was greeted with predictable contempt. His quixotic fixation on
the holy grail of a settlements freeze left peace talks dead in the
water. The explosion of popular unrest that first shook Iran in
2009, and which is now sweeping Arab lands, exposed the intellectual
vacuity of Obama's studied disregard of the region's freedom deficit.
Similarly, Obama's seeming inability to grasp America's vital interest
in Iraq's success, and his headlong rush for the exits by the end of
2011, has rendered that country's democratic experiment increasingly untethered and at the mercy of Iran's Islamic Republic.
instinct for reassuring hardened enemies, disregarding longtime friends,
and distrusting the exercise of American power. These were,
unfortunately, the dominant notes that a troubled region heard emanating
from Obama's uncertain trumpet for much of the last two years.
"Where is U.S. leadership?" What is U.S. policy?" Who's in
charge?" The most fundamental questions about American purpose,
which anxious Middle Eastern leaders struggled in vain to divine answers
to from visiting U.S. friends. The unhappy results? A
pervasive -- and corrosive -- sense of waning American power.
Adversaries emboldened to continue pressing every challenge.
Disheartened friends resorting both at home and abroad to short-sighted
measures of self-help and self-preservation. And a vital region of
the world increasingly brought near the boiling point, poised between
revolution, chaos, and civil war; teetering between the malignant
ambitions of an aspiring Persian hegemon and the withering resolve of a
traditional patron grown uncertain in the rightness of its cause and
weary of shouldering the burdens of leadership.
seemed responsible for the badly misguided framework that Obama brought
to office. A worldview heavily shaped by the leftist, anti-Western
claptrap that pervades much of what passes for Middle East studies in
the American academy. An obsession with distinguishing himself
from everything Bush. And a remarkably naive conviction that
simply by showing up on the world stage, Obama -- by virtue of
biography, personality, and charisma -- could somehow transcend the
immutable laws of an international system dominated by self-interested
nation states, several of which happen to be ruled by tyrannical regimes
that perceive their very survival as inextricably linked to the humbling
of American power, influence, and prestige. The "Obama Factor,"
like so much else in Obama's Middle East policy, did not survive first
contact with the enemy.
So what next? Will there be an
Obama Middle East policy 2.0? To some extent, the administration
has no option. It's been mugged by reality. I ran's unyielding
hostility in the face of Obama's repeated entreaties for dialogue laid
waste Obama's engagement strategy, leaving him little choice but to
resort, albeit belatedly, to the stick of sanctions. Likewise, the
eruption of mass protests across the Middle East, threatening both pro-
and anti-U.S. regimes, has forced issues of democratization and reform
to the very top of the administration's agenda, whether it wished them
there or not.
But much, much more needs to be done to advance
American interests. Having committed U.S. forces to battle, the
war in Libya must be hastened to a rapid conclusion that sees Qaddafi
ousted and replaced by a more decent, non-terrorist regime. Egypt's
revolution needs help achieving a soft landing that contains the Muslim
Brothers, bolsters liberal democratic forces, and preserves the
country's role as a bulwark of regional moderation. Iraq policy must be
taken off auto-pilot, and Obama must at long last engage himself
personally in the urgent task of defining a post-2011 U.S.-Iraqi
security relationship that maximizes the chances of safeguarding the
significant gains won by American blood and treasure.
most importantly, everything possible must be done to bring home to Iran
and Syria the full force of the revolt of 2011. Syria -- Iran's land
bridge to Hezbollah; tormenter of Lebanese independence; safe haven for
Palestinian terror groups; and facilitator of jihadists who killed
American soldiers in Iraq -- has been badly shaken already by several
weeks of protests. At a minimum, the Obama administration must now avoid
doing anything that throws the Assad regime a political lifeline. In
Iran, a systematic strategy must be quickly developed aimed at
strengthening the Green Movement which, while badly battered, is alive
and well, looking for the right opportunity to again challenge the very
foundations of the Islamic Republic.
It was, of course, in Iran
in 2009 that the true folly of Obama's Middle East policy reached its
most tragic denouement. At the Green Movement's height, with the Islamic
Republic at real risk of fracture and collapse -- when protesters cried
out "Obama, are you with us or are you with the regime?" -- Obama was
largely paralyzed, mute and detached, worried that an embrace of Iranian
freedom might put at risk his delusion of brokering a meaningful
diplomatic breakthrough with the murderers of Neda Soltan. An historic
opportunity to end the mullahs' 30-year war on America, erase the
darkening shadow of a nuclear Iran, and drive a stake through the heart
of radical Islamic extremism was lost. Figuring out how to help
resurrect it, and atone for that monumental strategic error, would be a
fitting place for Obama to start the process of rebuilding a viable
Middle East strategy for the final two years of his term.
Obama's Permanent Campaign
says Jeff Dobbs reminds me that back in July 2008, I examined how
much time Obama had spent as a candidate for higher office:
2008: Barring some nefarious plot by
Hillary Clinton, Obama will be running for president until November.
For purposes of this exercise, we'll count this as 11 months of
2007: Announced exploratory committee on
January 16. Formally announced presidential campaign on
February 10. I'm counting all 12 months.
Serving in U.S. Senate. While some would argue Obama was
unofficially campaigning already, including appearing at events in
Iowa, for the purposes of this calculation we will count his
campaigning as starting from the announcement of the exploratory
committee. 0 months.
2005: Serving in U.S.
Senate. 0 months.
2004: Running for U.S. Senate;
elected in November. 11 months.
2003: Running for
U.S. Senate. 12 months.
2002: Spent half the year
preparing the groundwork for his U.S. Senate campaign; he launched
his campaign committee in late June. His campaign often cites
the 2002 antiwar rally as a key moment in his campaign. 6 months.
2001: Serving in Illinois State Legislature. 0
2000: Lost the March 21 House primary against
Rep. Bobby Rush. 3 months.
1999: Announces bid to
challenge Rep. Bobby Rush in September. 4 months.
If you begin counting from September 1999, there
are 112 months between then and November 2008, and Obama campaigned for
higher office in 52.6 percent of those months. (This does not
count any campaigning to retain his seat in the state legislature.)
Now, with yesterday's announcement, Obama is a formally-declared
candidate again. Updating the list:
2009: Serving as president. 0
2010: Serving as president. 0 months.
2011: Running for reelection, April 4. Barring some
sudden interruption, Obama will spend 9 months as a declared
2012: Again, barring some sudden
interruption, Obama will campaign until November, spending 11 months
as a declared candidate.
This means in the 10 years between November 2002
and November 2012, Obama will have been a declared candidate for higher
office or presidential reelection for 67 of those 120 months, almost 56
It's what Obama
does. He doesn't know how to govern, and he certainly doesn't know
how to lead.
"You Might Want To Think About
we have yet to comment on one of the most outrageous moments of Barack
Obama's presidency: his ridiculing of a citizen who expressed concern
about rising energy costs:
Obama needled one questioner who asked
about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and
suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling
"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're
only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly.
"You might want to think about a trade-in."
Could Obama possibly
be more tone-deaf or more arrogant? He had no reason to think that
the questioner is driving a "gas guzzler." (Is there a single 8
mpg vehicle on the road these days?) In fact, it is not unusual
for Americans who drive normal vehicles to spend ten percent of their
disposable income on gasoline. When the price of gas doubles, as
it has during the Obama administration, those families are badly hurt.
As many have pointed out, Obama's suggestion that the questioner buy
a new car demonstrated his lack of understanding of those who are not
wealthy. If the man has a hard time filling up his tank, does
Obama really think he can afford a new car?
answer comes ill from a man who proudly owned this pimped-out,
tinted-windows, gas guzzling V-8,
Hemi powered Chrysler 300C (13/15 mpg city):
And every time Obama put his foot down on the
accelerator, he cried, "Burn Whitey, burn!"
But that is typical Obama: worries about mundane
matters like the price of gasoline are for the little people.
There is one other aspect of Obama's foolish response that I have not
seen commented upon. Rising energy costs do not just affect the
price of gasoline at the pump. Every product and every service
that the man who asked the question buys, requires energy. When
the cost of energy rises, the price of every commodity and service rises
with it -- which is to say that we all become poorer. Obama says
the man should trade in his car -- even though, for all he knows, the
man is driving a Prius -- but what is he supposed to do about, for
example, rising grocery prices? Stop eating? Or trade in his
You know, pointing out the absurdities in Barack
Obama's logic has gotten to be way too easy.
ACLU Accuses Obama Of Murder
David Edwards says disclosure of government
secrets often has little to do with the public's right to know and has
everything to do an official's need to tell, according to ACLU deputy
director Jameel Jaffer.
And that's especially true when it comes
to assassinations, which have not traditionally been an openly admitted
component of U.S. foreign policy -- but the American Civil Liberties
Union is cautioning that the Obama administration is changing all of
In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Jaffer, a key
attorney with the rights group, even warned that the Democrat in office
[Obama] has taken a
position on unilateral murder so extreme as to be "profoundly troubling"
in its legal reach and potential for future use.
says an interesting Bloomberg article about the last minute budget
negotiations: "President Barack Obama had finally reached his breaking
Obama doesn't seem to be very good at this. As I
read it I recalled a 2009 incident. Francis Cardinal George, then
chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke about meeting
Obama. George reported it was an odd meeting. Obama kept insisting
that he and the Cardinal were in agreement on abortion. The
Cardinal kept saying No, we are not. There was no need for any
resolution at that meeting, but it was telling that Obama couldn't
acknowledge a fundamental philosophical difference.
Here is what
Cardinal George had to say after his meeting:
"It's hard to disagree with him because
he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe
that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with
you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we
don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we
do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to
pray for him every day."
Cardinal George said he told the
president he was concerned about his decision to rescind the Mexico
City policy, which resulted in providing taxpayer money to fund
"He said we weren't exporting abortion,"
the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say,
'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and
you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President,
you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.'
A discomfort with conflict may also be a reason
Obama avoided faculty lunches at the University of Chicago Law School.
I had a boss who didn't like conflict and he would get visibly
uncomfortable at some of the lunch meetings at the Chicago Bar
Association at which the experts would go hammer and tongs over their
opinions about this issue and that pending case. I suspect the
table talk at the faculty lunches takes much the same tone.
ebullient Obama taking a victory lap at the Lincoln Memorial in the
aftermath of the budget deal is a case of making lemonade from the
lemons, or even more so Obama's need to take credit for everything.
I think he was genuinely relieved to have one source of conflict
resolved, at least for a while.
Not being able to deal with
conflict has to be the ultimate bummer of a personality trait for a
POTUS. No wonder he's made a political career of never meeting
with Republicans -- and always voting, "present."
Obama always lets you down.
Just when you think he's ready to deliver a lofty speech chocked with
specifics on handling the spending and debt emergency, he offers up a
hyper-partisan attack on the leading Republican proposal, gives
practically no details of his own plan, and then sanctimoniously puts
himself on the side of preserving "the American dream for future
Obama didn't rise to the occasion. He
actually sank, as he did two months ago when he released a 2012 budget
that would increase spending by $40 billion and double the national debt
over the next decade.
Let me list the lowlights of Obama's speech
this afternoon at George Washington University:
• The problem
is George W. Bush's fault. This is a hardy perennial of
Obama's. "America's finances were in great shape by the year
2000," he said. Then spending skyrocketed due to two wars and
a prescription drug program and "we didn't pay for any of this new
spending." The fiscal problem was made worse "with trillions
of dollars in unpaid for tax cuts." He didn't mention that
discretionary spending soared on his watch by 11 percent in 2009 and
14 percent in 2010, up from 6 percent in 2008, the last Bush year.
Nor did he concede that Democrats wanted a bigger, more expensive
Medicare drug program.
distorted the Republican budget for 2012 drafted by Representative
Paul Ryan and approved by the House Budget Committee. Ryan's
vision "says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't
afford to fix them…[and] says America can't afford to keep the
promise we've made to care for our seniors," Obama declared.
And, oh, yes, there are the kids with disabilities or autism or Down
syndrome who would have to "fend for themselves" if the Ryan budget
• Obama resorts to
class warfare -- again. Ryan would "reduce the deficit by
spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires." Please, tax cuts aren't the same as spending.
They lead to private investment, which creates jobs. In fact,
Obama said, the rich would be happy to pay higher taxes.
"Washington just hasn't asked them to." That's the root of the
• Obama takes
credit for already having cut $1 trillion in health care as a result
of ObamaCare. He uses this figure frequently, but does anyone
really believe it? Not many. In a supposedly serious
speech, it's out of place. And guess who would make sure cuts
in medical care actually occur? One of the most controversial
and feared aspects of ObamaCare: the Independent Payment Advisory
Board, which was purposely put out of the reach of congressional
supervision. It may not be a death panel, but it's headed in
• For all
his vagueness, Obama did set a goal of reducing the deficit by $4
trillion over 12 years. He offered no specifics, only broad
categories. But it's specifics that matter. Goals for
cutting spending are easy to set. They're a Washington
specialty. They're just never met.
Obama ended on a (false) high note. His plan
embraces "a sense of responsibility" that Americans have for each other.
"It's patriotism." Imagine the reaction if President Bush had said
that. It wouldn't have been pretty. But Obama will probably
get away with it.
America Needs A Genuine Leader.
Instead, We've Got Obama
says sometimes we do things and days or years later we look back and
ask ourselves, "What was I thinking?", or "why did I do that?"
Often we simply cannot answer as we do not know why we acted in a
certain way. This is true for everyone.
Yes, we need to be
careful about casting judgment. Do not try to judge motivation,
you really cannot. To do so would require something that no man
has: perfect knowledge. Yet, we can judge behavior, and in some
instances not only can we judge it, principle and genuine responsibility
require us to do so. As some of us watched and listened to
Wednesday's budget stunt by Obama there is an obligation to respond.
It was really a low point for the office -- insulting,
confrontational, acidic in contempt for those who produce wealth,
grossly ignorant of how commerce and business works, larded with
dangerous distortions, extremely divisive, perhaps even willfully
dishonest and misleading.
That leads to a real conundrum: being
forced to ask why someone is doing something. We ought to try to
avoid the why and just focus on the what. In this instance, any
person of genuine conscience cannot do so.
Many stable and
intelligent Americans are now convinced Obama wants everything to blow
up. He will pretend to move to the center. He will pretend
to care. He will pretend to give serious thought about our
situation. He will play pretend by setting up commissions and blue
ribbon panels to study a matter and then totally ignore the advice and
counsel presented to him.
Wednesday he proposed another fact
finding rope-a-dope skull session with so called experts.
to Obama: we don't have time to do this, and even if we did, one has to
suspect that you would do the same as you did with the last debt
commission: ignore it completely.
Yes ultimately, it looks like
he wants it all to go up in smoke, because to confront the problem would
also mean to destroy the liberal worldview and wipe out the Democratic
Party and its redistributive entitlement machine.
In the choice
between country and party, Obama has chosen party. There is to be
found no other rational explanation. Perhaps he is just totally
incompetent. That is likely true, but I cannot fathom incompetence
shoveling down to his level of imbecility. No one is this stupid.
Most level headed, productive Americans cannot believe that any
rational, thinking person cannot see the maelstrom that is headed our
What can be said for certain is this: Obama's actions,
behavior, and policies will certainly lead to economic hardship, and
perhaps even fiscal ruin and destruction of the nation.
The Incredible Shrinking Obama
says Barack Obama's budget address last week ranks among the most
dishonest and dishonorable presidential speeches in generations.
It contained an avalanche of false and misleading statements. It
was shallow and bitterly partisan. Yet the speech served a useful
purpose: It provided the American people in general, and Republicans in
particular, with the basic line of attack that Obama will use between
now and the 2012 election.
The White House strategy is clear:
argue that Obama wants to restore fiscal balance by raising taxes on
"millionaires and billionaires" while those who don't favor higher taxes
on the wealthy are fundamentally unserious. As a political matter,
of course, class warfare does not have a particularly successful track
record. But, to keep it that way, Republicans need to provide a
compelling response to the Obama strategy. Fortunately such a
Obama's argument is built on sand. A tax
increase on the wealthy would fall far short of the revenues needed to
reverse our fiscal trajectory. Our budget problems are
significantly worse today than they were in the 1990s. There are
not nearly enough wealthy people in the nation to tax in order to tame
our debt. If Obama wants higher taxes to improve our fiscal
imbalance, he will need to embrace a massive middle-class tax increase
and/or a value added tax (VAT). But Obama hasn't shown the
slightest preference for that option. It's pure fiction to pretend
that higher taxes on those making more than $200,000 will make much of a
dent in our debt, given the size of our long-term spending problem.
Obama's argument isn't with Republicans. It's with basic
Republicans need to unmask the philosophy guiding
modern liberalism when it comes to taxes. What liberals are
interested in isn't growth so much as egalitarianism and redistribution
for its own sake. For many on the left, increasing taxes isn't
about economics as much as morality. They believe taxing the
wealthy is a virtue, to the point that they would penalize "the rich"
even if that has harmful economic consequences. Recall that during
a campaign debate, when asked by Charles Gibson about his support for
raising capital gains taxes even if that caused a net revenue loss to
the Treasury, Obama sided with tax increases "for purposes of fairness."
Higher taxes would keep our current welfare state in place for only
a little while longer. The entitlement apparatus would remain
unsustainable. Tax increases might slightly delay, but could not
forestall, a fiscal crack-up. The only thing that can is
reconfiguring and restructuring our entitlement programs, most
especially Medicare. That is what Paul Ryan's plan does -- and
what Obama's budget avoids doing.
The point cannot be made often
enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama agenda, is the
defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to
It is important for Republicans to put this
debate in the right frame. Left unaddressed, our crushing burden
of debt will cripple the American economy. Yet the aim of
conservatism isn't simply lower deficits and debt. It's also
limited government and a thriving society. A leviathan state is
injurious because of its effect on civic character, because it
undermines self-reliance and creates dependency. And this, in
turn, results in an enervation of the entrepreneurial spirit that is
necessary for innovation and prosperity.
Barack Obama has amassed
a dismal economic record. (Former senator Phil Gramm points out
that if Barack Obama had matched Ronald Reagan's post-recession recovery
rate, 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs.) Obama can't
campaign on his record -- so he's betting his reelection chances on
stoking embers of anger and resentment. That's about all that's
left of hope and change.
Obama Hits Rock Bottom
is reporting that the latest Gallup Daily tracking three-day average
represents a new low for Barack Obama, with just 41 percent of Americans
approving his job performance. This matches his previous lows in
August 2010 and October 2010, just before the mid-term elections, and it
is significantly down from his 2011 average of 48 percent. Obama's
disapproval rating now stands at 50 percent, the highest point since
August last year. In contrast, George W. Bush's approval rating at
this stage of his presidency stood at 70 percent (April 2003), and the
average for US presidents in the ninth quarter stands at 57 percent.
Disconcertingly for the White House, his ratings have plummeted
among independents, from an average of 44 percent in 2011 to just 35
percent this week, devastating figures if translated at the ballot box
in 2012, where securing the independent vote will be vital. Even
among Democrats, support for the president is now running at just 77
percent, down four points from the 2011 average, and down seven points
from the average for 2009-11.
As Gallup points out, Obama is now
as unpopular as he has ever been:
Obama is now as unpopular as he
has been at any time since the inauguration. He faces
difficult challenges ahead in trying to improve the economy and get
the federal budget deficit under control, and must do so with
Republicans in control of the House. His ability to navigate
these challenges will help determine whether he will be elected to a
second term as president. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and
Bill Clinton all were similarly unpopular at this stage of their
presidencies, but the last two were able to turn things around in
time to win a second term in office.
The latest Gallup figures are even worse than the
most recent Quinnipiac University national poll released at the end of
March, which tracked Obama at just 42 percent approval. As I noted
in a previous piece, Obama receives strong negativity ratings for his
handling of virtually all key issues, including the economy, budget
deficit, health care, foreign policy and energy policy:
According to Quinnipiac, on the economy 60
percent of Americans disapprove of his performance, including more
than a quarter of Democrats. That figure rises to 64 percent on the
budget deficit. On health care, less than 40 percent of Americans
back the president, with 55 percent opposing. On foreign policy, 47
percent disapprove of his handling, compared to just 41 percent in
favour, with only two in five Americans approving of his leadership
of the Libya issue.
And if his heavily panned performance this week on
the budget deficit is anything to go by, it is unlikely that Obama's
ratings will be significantly improving anytime soon. Barack Obama
faces an increasingly disillusioned electorate which, as the latest RealClear Politics average of polls shows, overwhelmingly believes the
country is heading down the wrong track. With deep-seated fears
over the economy, including towering levels of federal debt, dominating
voter concerns, Obama seems destined for another fall, perhaps on an
even bigger scale than the setback the Left suffered last November.
In sharp contrast to his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, who
did survive low ratings in his third year to ultimately win a second
term, Obama is drifting further to the left rather than the political
centre, a move which will only further alienate independents who moved
decisively against him in the mid-terms. And as for comparisons
with Ronald Reagan, who also recovered from low approval ratings to
bounce back in 1984, the Gipper was simply in a different league to
Barack Obama, displaying the kind of decisive, principled leadership
that is sorely lacking in the White House today.
Obama's Third World America
The Washington Times
says Obama is warning that Republican policies will turn America
into a Third World country. Look who's talking.
campaign fundraising trip to Chicago, Obama quipped that under the
proposed Republican budget plan, "we would be a nation of potholes, and
our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used
to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
He failed to elaborate on which developing countries he thinks should be
models for the United States, but his policies have secured America's
status as part of the declining world.
Obama has approached the
presidency less as a traditional American chief executive and more as a
developing world populist. The 2009 stimulus program was taken
directly from this playbook, using deficit spending to distribute favors
to his union supporters and cronies in the form of public-works projects
and other handouts. It was a spectacular failure at creating the
promised number of jobs but succeeded in Obama's core mission to "spread
the wealth around."
Obama has accepted what he sees as the
inevitability of American economic decline. During the 2008
presidential campaign, he declared, "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as
much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then
just expect that other countries are going to say OK." He has yet
to explain why he thinks the American people need to ask permission from
other countries to maintain a high standard of living
trip to India in November 2010, he said that for most of his lifetime,
"the U.S. was such an enormously dominant economic power … that we
always met the rest of the world economically on our terms." In
his view, however, Obama is overseeing the end times for U.S. economic
dominance. Rising economies in China, India, Russia, Brazil and
elsewhere will, he says, "keep America on its toes." Meanwhile,
these same countries just finished a conference in China exploring new
ways to put America flat on its back.
Obama is making our
enemies' job easier. He has increased economic regulation, pursued
energy policies that stifle exploration and production at home while
promoting it abroad, and has shown a general contempt for free-market
principles that made the U.S. economy great. Plus, given Obama's
astonishingly lax immigration policies, America won't have to wait long
to become a Third World country because the Third World is coming here.
The debt accrued on Obama's watch is the centerpiece of the forces
that are driving the United States to global pauperhood. In 2008,
gross public debt was 69 percent of the gross domestic product.
This year it will pass 100 percent. Obama's debt has stifled
economic productivity and has driven the country to the point where only
66 percent of men had jobs last year, the lowest figure on record.
Were it not for Obama's drunken-sailor-style spending, facilitated
by Democratic supermajorities in both houses of Congress during his
first two years, the United States wouldn't be in this fix. Still,
Obama's answer to economic crisis is to heap on more debt. It's
this crippling tax-and-spend Obama creed that's bringing America to the
brink of Third World inferiority.
Losing The Legitimacy To Govern
reminds that a few weeks ago, we were awash with the Obama
administration and his acolytes in the media bleating about the
legitimacy to govern, as in "Mubarak/Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to
govern," or "He has lost legitimacy with the people." We were then
told that these men had to step down or be forced out of power.
Lefties lectured us that this loss of legitimacy was justification for
bombing the smithereens out of Libya
"He has lost his legitimacy
to govern." That's a catchy phrase, don't you think? It has
a nice ring to it.
Suppose someone closer to home has lost his
legitimacy; I am thinking of you-know-who, the current occupant of the
White House. It's true that he hasn't bombed or strafed us or
anything, but isn't there another standard we could use to determine
this legitimacy thing?
Consider that he has broken not a few, nor
even most of his campaign promises, but every single one.
Employment and underemployment, health insurance premiums, and gasoline
prices are higher, more people are uninsured, the debt and deficits are
higher, we are now in three, not two, or zero wars, Guantanamo Bay is
open, not closed, we are trying terrorists in military tribunals, not
Manhattan, Americans are more, not less divided, there is less, not more
transparency in ObamaLand, and on and on it goes.
his speeches...er...teleprompter readings as I did on Wednesday causes
my brain to ache. He is for and against everything simultaneously.
He says the government should live within its means and proposes more
spending, he lauds the Republicans for putting forth a budget which he
himself has repeatedly failed to do and then says the Republican plan
will cause people to die and 50 million to be without insurance.
He wants a strong economy and proposes tax increases.
There is a
word that comes to mind with this kind of thinking, if indeed we can
call it thinking; loopy.
Even the oceans have dissed him by
refusing to lower their levels as he commanded. The Japanese can
attest to that.
Now, about this legitimacy thing; I am not
proposing that we sic the U.N. or NATO or the French on him or anything.
But can we not now at least admit that as president, he is an abject
failure and has lost all legitimacy?
A National Gloom Descends Over Obama’s
says you know things are really going badly for the White House when
even The New York Times, the most powerful bastion of liberalism in
America, is warning Obama he is in serious trouble. Today’s New
York Times/CBS News poll makes devastating reading for Barack Obama’s
advisers, showing the nation’s mood at its lowest level for two years:
Americans are more pessimistic about the
nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been
at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when
the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession,
according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in
Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future
obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if
unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a
recovery was under way are now all but gone… Disapproval of
Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy has never been broader -- at 57
percent of Americans -- a warning sign as he begins to set his
sights on re-election in 2012.
According to the poll, a staggering 70 percent of
Americans believe the country is moving down the "wrong track," nearly
three times more than the number who believe it is heading in the "right
direction" (26 percent). 39 Percent believe the economy is getting
worse, 16 points higher than the number who think it is getting better,
and 59 percent disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the
federal budget deficit.
There is no room for complacency on the
Right however, according to the poll, with 75 percent unhappy with the
way the Republican-controlled Congress is doing its job, and strong
disillusionment with leadership on both sides of the political aisle:
The displeasure with officeholders of both
parties is reminiscent of the mood that prevailed in November, when
anti-incumbent sentiment swept Democrats out of power in the House
and diminished their edge in the Senate.
But the poll also shows strong support for conservative
principles, including opposition to big government and a raise in the
debt limit, as well as strong support for cuts in spending for federal
In what Republicans can take as a positive
sign as they seek a more limited government, 55 percent of poll
respondents said they would rather have fewer services from a
smaller government than more services from a bigger one, as opposed
to 33 percent who said the opposite, a continuation of a trend in
Times/CBS polls… Twice as many respondents said they would
prefer cuts in spending on federal programs that benefit people like
them as said they would favor a rise in taxes to pay for such
Coming on the heels of two other major polls which
show declining support for Obama and mounting unhappiness with his
handling of the economy, this latest New York Times poll will make the
White House exceptionally nervous. There are renewed fears across
America that economic growth is once again stalling, dragging down job
creation and consumer confidence, and resulting in a 13 percent jump
this month in the number of Americans who feel the economy is worsening.
A national gloom has descended over Obama’s America, with potentially
far reaching consequences for the 2012 elections, a contest that will
largely be decided by debates over the economy. Hope and change is
in the air, but not quite of the kind the Obama presidency envisioned.
Obama Thinks It's Silly
Grace Harley says Obama holds the highest
office in the land and promotes himself as a constitutional lawyer yet
views the eligibility of his elected position as "silly." What
else does he view as silly and simply not worthy of his time to consider
as serious? Perhaps the Constitution itself? Perhaps even
his oath of office?
When Obama came before the cameras (yet
again) to make a momentous announcement, it was not that he had made
headway into solving the horrific problem of our national debt. It
was not to give honor to our nine citizens fallen in battle in
Afghanistan or to offer condolences to the victims of multiple
tornadoes. It was not even to promote his already launched second
term campaign. Obama stood before the camera and the gathered
press to inform them that he views the requirements of a presidential
candidate as a thing not to be taken solemnly.
"silly" in two ways: 1) as happy, guileless or inoffensive or 2) as
foolish, intellectually weak, witless, simple, showing folly, unwise and
There is no doubt in which way our nation's elected
leader regards the requirements of office that were set forth by our
Founding Fathers. Or does he consider them silly as well? As
an educator of both children and non-English speaking adults, whenever
such a phrasing style is used, it is natural for me to break it down
into various perspectives as would come from my students. The
remark "we do not have time for this kind of silliness..." (ie:
confirming the existence and status of a president's birth certificate)
leads me to contemplate "for just what kind of silliness do we have
time, Mr. Obama?"
Is there time for the foolish and
intellectually weak actions of cross-country campaign jaunts or the
witless and simple lecturing to world famous FaceBook employees and
their young billionaire founder on how to be successful and work as a
team? Really, should we make time for showing folly with regards
to our national debt and its path to ruination? Why not take true
quality time for unwise and stupid embracing of confirmed terrorists and
threats to our very Homeland?
For many other kinds of silliness,
it seems we do indeed have much time. In fact, all the time in the
world to kill as the calendar turns into another month and then another.
If enough time passes in our current daily mode of "moving forward" and
"going forward" vocabulary, then it will be too late to attend to our
"complaints" of birth location or even citizenship. Pesky problems
will often settle themselves or simply go away of their own exhaustion
if worn down by time. So, for other kinds of silliness there is
plenty of time.
But we now must get serious to deal with the
many problems of our country. No one was really serious before
because they dared to be silly about such silly things...like the law of
the land. At least that is the opinion of the lawyer-in-chief.
So, let's all work together and move forward and keep on moving real
fast so no one notices that the clock is ticking, the calendar pages are
turning, and the law no longer matters in the oval office.
and those pesky problem folks called Tax-Paying Citizens, they will have
to find something else to be silly about now. I suggest the
"silliness" of the 2012 presidential campaign. But let's follow
Webster's #1 definition for a campaign that is silly with happy,
guileless, inoffensive candidates and management in order to avoid a #2
silliness this time around.
Silly Mr. Obama, tricks are for
Related:Cocky Obama Mocks America,
Tells Oprah: "I Remember Being Born in Hawaii" (Video)
Obama: Deniability Man
James Lewis says the liberal mafia was in
full-blown ass-kissing suck-up mode last week, knocking their foreheads
on the bare earth over and over, to pay homage to His Imperial Highness
Barack H. Obama -- again.
They were practically exchanging
bodily fluids right there in public. Last week was pure liberal
porn. The world hasn't seen this kind of abject idol-worshipping
adulation from the American left since Uncle Joe Stalin ran the Soviet
Empire. Even the Euroleft looked embarrassed, and it takes a lot
to embarrass them -- and all because a team of US Navy SEALs risked
their lives to finally bust bin Laden. Never mind those Navy SEALs
and their helicopter crews, or the CIA guys and gals on the ground.
Barack Obama is so heroic! Gutsy! Whaddaguy!
here's what I think really happened. I can't prove it, just call
me suspicious -- about two weeks before Obama's Famous Victory, Barry
says to Leon Panetta:
Barry: Just remember, I don't know
nuthin' about this SEAL operation -- unless it works and they kill
that dude. Then you come over here lickety-split and we'll
take the Situation Room photos. I want complete deniability.
If the SEALs crash or get killed, this never happened. If they
get UBL I want all the credit. Or...maybe you don't want to be
Leon: OK, Mr. President.
So they shielded the White House from the Navy
SEALs and the CIA, probably with high-level coordination with the
Pakistan military, because Musharraf wants to be president again, and he
needs to spread around a few billion US dollars to get there.
It's just like Chicago -- Standard Operating Procedure.
not even SEAL stealth copters fly into a hostile division headquarter of
a fairly modern army, because that would be suicide, which is why bin
Laden was kept there. As long as the Pakis wanted to protect him,
to trade him for US favors, or maybe to please Saudi royals who are
fellow Wahhabis like bin Laden, UBL was safe.
This operation was
a setup. The Pak Army knew enough to clear the ground and the air.
Otherwise, all it takes is one guy with an RPG to blow up a helicopter
that's flying low enough and slow enough to land and take off again.
It might take 15 minutes on the ground to do the job, and you're a
sitting duck for UBL's bodyguards and random soldiers. So this had
to be coordinated with all the big players on the ground.
like a Chicago mob hit. Everybody knows except the target.
Taking out bin Laden was a win-win-win. Bin Laden dies a
martyr, and the Moo Bro mobs have a new reason to burn American flags.
Obama gets to play Patton to launch his reelection campaign.
Zardari and the Pak military get more US dollars.
The only thing
the administration got wrong was the story. The White House didn't
know what was going down until Panetta told them. They didn't want
to know. This is the "Vote Present" president, remember? He
only wants to own up if he knows he can take a victory lap for what the
In what would be a major news story if the times we
live in were not so bizarre, the Senate voted 97-0 against Obama's FY
2012 budget. Obama's budget was such a joke that not a single Democrat
was willing to support it.
do the Democrats have something better to propose? The answer is: No.
The Democratic Senate has not come up with a budget in two years,
thereby violating federal law. Obama has not proposed a replacement for
his laughable FY 2012 budget, which not a single member of Congress is
willing to support. The Democrats have no budget; no plan; no path out
of the fiscal disaster into which they have led the United States. They
are bystanders and political opportunists, utterly unfit to govern.
Victor Davis Hanson
says that so far the Obama
record is found in three areas:
We were promised a post-September 2008 recovery. We got an
economic plan of massive federal borrowing and spending ("stimulus"),
massive new federal hiring, a federalized absorption of health care, and
radically new regulation and intrusion into the private sector (from the
GM bailout to attempting to stop Boeing from opening an additional
factory in a right-to-work state). The result is largely hundreds
of exemptions from ObamaCare granted to corporations, businesses, and
unions, 9+ percent unemployment, record numbers on food stamps and
unemployment insurance, sky-high gasoline prices, record annual budget
deficits, $5 trillion added in aggregate debt, low economic growth, a
dismal housing market, and soaring food prices.
Reset Foreign Policy. We were promised a multilateral reset
diplomacy. We got a national-security policy that has either
rejected everything that legislator, senator, and presidential candidate
Obama once professed to believe in or ran on (the closing of Guantanamo,
curbing the Patriot Act, ending renditions, tribunals, preventative
detention, and wiretaps, intercepts, accelerating the Petraeus-Bush plan
of withdrawal from Iraq) or hit a dead end with new reset initiatives:
the reach-out to Iran, the initial olive branch to the Assad thugocracy,
the isolation of Israel, "lead from behind" strategy in the Middle East,
trying KSM in New York, and the frostiness to old European allies.
Our national approval ratings abroad are little higher than during the
Bush administration, and the attitude of a China, India, or Russia to
the U.S. is unchanged or worse.
3) The New
Civility and Morality. We were promised a new ethos of civility
and no-more-red/blue-state divisiveness. In fact, U.S. society has
never been more polarized. The beer summit, "punish your enemies,"
sit in the backseat, limb-lopping and tonsil-ripping-out doctors, "my
people," cowards, wise Latina, the Van Jones silliness, arresting kids
on the way to ice cream, suing Arizona, tea-"baggers" -- all that
demagoguery and more is trivial in isolation, but in the 28-month
aggregate has created an image of a petulant Obama administration as
us/them, highlighted by press restrictions on and punishments of any
journalists found less than obsequious. And when we factor in the
tax problems of Obama cabinet officials and nominees -- Geithner, Solis,
Holder, Daschle -- the record number of golf outings, the revolving-door
careers of those like a Peter Orszag, and the quietly dropped ban on
lobbyists, there is at best mostly the same old, same old D.C. insider
game, or at worst a new petulance and intolerance for dissent.
What is left then of the Obama legacy so far? Killing bin Laden,
planned ending of "don’t ask, don’t tell" (whose consequences we have
not yet experienced), abandonment of enforcement of the Defense of
Marriage Act, quintupling Bush’s Predator-drone targeted assassination
program, and not much else.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Hugh de Payns
says that "Unserious" and "Lacking basic leadership" are the candid
descriptions of Barack Obama provided to listeners this morning on WLS
AM 890 radio by US Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).
On May 25th,
Senator Johnson had sent Obama a letter callong on him to prepare a
contingency plan, in case Congress rejects a debt ceiling increase.
Johnson and 22 other Senators signed the letter (copy
Johnson and several of those Senators then had a face
to face follow up meeting with Obama regarding that letter, the debt
ceiling, and our nation's budget difficulties. According to the
senator, while the meeting was cordial, Obama had a rather dismissive
and unserious posture on the entire situation.
How about going over two years without passing a budget?
Obama should be out in front of this but he is not -- he doesn't care.
The media should be hounding the White House over this lack of
leadership. Instead they are focused on pictures of some
politician's underwear posted on Facebook.
How about the blunt fact that the one budget created by Obama was
unanimously voted down 97-0 by the Democratically controlled Senate just
two weeks ago. Obama did not collect a single vote for his budget
-- not even from within his own political party. How often in the
history of Congress has that ever happened? It is safe to say that
the budget sent by Obama was a signal of his intent to do nothing but
play games and politics. This is not leadership.
again, our nation has reached yet another debt ceiling, and the Treasury
Secretary, the Democrats in Congress, and the media are pushing to pass
yet another extension without any attempt to correct the source of the
problem: out of control spending.
Keep in mind that Obama and
the Democrats have, quite literally, no alternative. Yes, the Ryan
plan has problems. True, it is imperfect and it makes some
assumptions that might not be correct. Yes, it glosses over some
issues with our entitlements. Yet, the Democratic Party has
nothing to offer, we have to begin somewhere -- and soon. Yet we
have no leadership.
When it comes to our nation's finances and
spending our money, Barack Obama is both irresponsible and rudderless.
His actions say that he does not seem to care, and he does not want to
Call it irresponsible. Call it a total lack of
leadership. Call it incompetent.
Better than that: call
your elected representatives and get them to apply pressure to the
administration and the Democratic Party. They need to grow up and
start doing the job they were elected to do.
Because we need a genuine leader, but we've got Obama instead.
The Repackaging Of Failure
says the national unemployment rate is over 9 percent and over 45
percent of the unemployed (that's 6.2 million Americans) have been out
of work for more than 6 months -- a higher percentage than during the
Great Depression. But Obama barely acknowledged these painful
economic facts dismissing them with a single line in his latest campaign
"There are always going to be bumps on the
road to recovery."
After two and a half years of a job killing agenda,
Obama & Company can no longer blame their predecessors for their own
Seemingly incapable of honest self-evaluation, the
seriously wounded administration is minimizing the pain American
families are enduring and lashing out at phantom targets. Obama's
top economic advisor Austan Goolsbee appeared on the Sunday talk show
circuit to say that "stiff headwinds" caused by the disaster in Japan
and higher gas prices are responsible for the dismal employment reports
But even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
(D-California) didn't try to blame outside forces for the situation.
Instead Obama's former go-to-gal acknowledged that the new unemployment
figures were "disturbing" and could only offer the unsubstantiated
defense that "If the president hadn't done what he did, the situation
would have been worse."
So how will the Obama 2012 Campaign
attempt to repackage Obama's economic failures in its quest for a second
term? Will they pretend the increased regulations, threatened tax
increases and out of control spending did not create an environment in
which businesses of all sizes have had to eliminate jobs and been unable
to create new ones? Or will they drag out the tired old line that
these policies "saved or created" jobs while the numbers continue to
It may not matter what package the campaign
chooses as the American people have seen and felt the effects of buying
into Obama's empty platitudes and broken promises. As House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) recently observed, "This
president continues to give speeches as if he is there for the middle
class and the small businesses. But somehow the rhetoric falls
short, because the actions have seemed to hinder job growth and
Students Don't Think He's Cool Anymore
says Barack Obama famously won the 2008 election on a wave of
support from America's youth, but any hopes the 49-year-old had of
keeping down with the kids appear to have faded -- his support from
young people is rapidly waning, a poll has found.
And for a man
known for his "jacket off" casual style the reason for this slump may be
particularly hurtful -- students are abandoning Obama because they do
not think he is cool anymore.
According to the National Journal's
Ronald Brownstein report, Obama has dramatically lost support from young
people -- and particularly young white people -- in America since 2008.
His approval rating among those aged 18 to 29 is currently at 56 per
cent -- a huge fall of ten points since the 2008 exit polls.
reason for this sudden drop is because students, who rushed behind the
Obama campaign in 2008, no longer think he is cool, according to those
at Oberlin College, known for its hipster left-wing activism.
Four undergraduate editors at the college newspaper signed an essay
bemoaning how apolitical their peers had become. Their argument in
their piece, "Oberlin-based Perspectives on the Obama Presidency," was
that students had become disenfranchised because they no longer think
Obama is cool.