Obama's Public Temper Tantrum

Obama cannot run on his track record he cannot promise that the future will be brighter. Instead, he plans to run a childish campaign that pits Americans against other Americans and tells us that we are all victims.

President Obama is not running a re-election campaign; he is having a public temper tantrum.

In his speech today to college students at the University of North Carolina, the president lamented over and over again: It's not fair!

We’ve got to build an economy where everybody is getting a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules.

This sounds more like my 5 and 6-year-old arguing than a sitting president of the United States: Daddy, he got a bigger slice of pizza than me! It's not fair! No fair, Mommy! She got four cookies and I only have three!  Not fair! How come I have to go to bed and she doesn't?

It's not fair, Obama cries, that he pays less in taxes than she does (even though she likely doesn't pay more); he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he wasn't; he earns more than the other guy; she has more sprinkles on her ice cream than he does.

Wait. that last one was my kids. It is so hard to tell these things apart.

---

Obama claims that he wants you to succeed, but if you do, he will insult you, double your taxes, try to control your salary, criticize your getting a bonus, and generally blame all of the country's problems on you.

---

He continues to echo my children by lying and exaggerating about the facts:

And instead, over the past few years, Republicans in Congress have voted against new ways to make college more affordable for middle-class families, even while they’re voting for huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- tax cuts that, by the way, would have to be paid for by cutting things like education and job-training programs that give students new opportunities to work and succeed. 

There has not been a single vote for "huge tax cuts" for anyone. The Congress continued the Bush tax cuts; but those tax cuts covered every tax payer -- and had Obama's support!

But, Daddy, look what she did! when confronted for doing something wrong. She said swear words, too! Um, no she didn't, son.


Even more juvenile is Obama's delusional double-speak. Today, he claims:

In America, we admire success.  We aspire to it.  I want everybody to be rich.  I want everybody to work and hustle and start businesses and study your tails off to get there.

Except, that if you happen to have the opportunity to work or start a business (note that 50% of college grads today can't get a job), and you happen to succeed, Obama will insult you, double or triple your taxes, try to control your salary, criticize your getting a bonus, tell you not to make a profit, and generally blame all of the country's problems on you.

Obama claims that he took moved all students loans to the White House so that he could save the folks some money:

Before I took office, we had a student loan system where tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were going to banks, not students.  Some in Washington fought tooth and nail to protect the status quo, where billions of dollars were going to banks instead of students.  And they wanted to protect that.  They wanted to keep those dollars flowing to the banks.

Not even close to true. The Republicans, and other supporters of freedom and the private sector, were understandably concerned about the White House deciding who will get student loans and why.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. In a statement, the leader laments that too many institutions are already riddled with government fingerprints, “We have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, health care and now the student loan business."

Obama is a confused, delusional man who cannot run on his track record and cannot tell the American people what he really wants to do. He cannot tell us that we are better off now than before he was elected. he cannot promise that the future will be brighter.

Instead, he plans to run a childish, demeaning, and contemptible campaign that pits Americans against other Americans, whines that the system is unfair, and works all-too-hard to convince us that we are all victims of someone else.

It is time to send Obama back home to Chicago and give someone else a chance.

UPDATE:
I prefer Mitt Romney's vision of fairness in his speech on April 24:

This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.

Obama on High Gas Prices: Buy a New Car

One broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

As you fill up your tank this week, paying the highest (prices) ever for this time of year, here is a reminder of what our president thinks about your struggle to pay for gas: just buy a new car.

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 vehicle.

"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."

See, it is your fault, not his.

Obama, who has done nothing to help fuel prices, openly mocked this gentleman who had the nerve to complain about the pain at the pumps.

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he's ever seen.

Mr Coudle, just buy a new car.

I am not sure which is worse: Obama insulting someone who raised a legitimate concern; his condescending ignorance that not every one can just trade their car in; or his clueless notion that anyone who gets over "8 miles a gallon" should not care about high gas prices.

Americans spent 8.4 percent of their household income on gasoline last year when gas averaged an all-time high of $3.51 a gallon. That's double the percentage a decade ago. They could pay even more this year, even though demand is the lowest in 11 years as people drive fewer miles in more efficient cars, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at OPIS.

You see, Obama thinks there is nothing that he can do to stop the astronomical rise in gas prices during his term.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now," the president told workers at a wind turbine plant.

While that may be true, what has Obama done in the three years since he took office,a time when gas prices have more than doubled. Nothing.

Could it be that Obama could do something, but won't? Let's ask his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a measure to open up off-shore areas to new oil and natural gas drilling when the price of gas reached $4.50-per-gallon. Salazar objected. So McConnell changed it to $5-per-gallon. Salazar still objected.

And so on and so on it went until McConnell said $10-per-gallon. Salazar continued to object, at which point it was clear that, as the Democratic spokesman in that particular discussion, the Colorado senator would not allow America to produce more oil and gas even if Americans had to pay more than double what they were paying then for a gallon of gas.

Or, is it that Obama has intentionally driving up the prices of oil in order to drive his green energy initiatives?

There can be no doubt that the president took deliberate action to block access to the nation’s energy resources. A federal judge recently found the Interior Department in contempt for ignoring his order overturning the oil-drilling moratorium the administration imposed following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On Feb. 22, Judge Martin Feldman upped the pressure by insisting that the department act on five pending permits within 30 days. Permits that would, under normal circumstances, be processed in two weeks have been ignored for four to nine months. “Not acting at all is not a lawful option,” Judge Feldman wrote. The department had no choice but to issue the first permit since the spill on Feb. 28.

The House Committee on Natural Resources (full disclosure, headed by a Republican) has a breath-taking list of the measures undertaken by the Obama administration that the committee feels have directly resulted in "skyrocketing" energy costs.

"Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect," Obama said.

I know one broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

The REAL Problem with the ObamaCare "Contraception Mandate"

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what must be covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

I have been listening all week to the complaints by conservatives about Obama's recent decision to require all health plans offered by Catholic institutions to include "women's health services." A requirement that the administration seems to be backing quickly away from.

This is not about contraception; this is not about the Catholic Church. This is about whether the federal government of the United States should have the power to go in and require a religious organization to pay for something that the religious organization teaches against.

Mr. Rubio is close. This debate should be about whether the federal government of the United States has the power to tell an insurance company what it can or cannot provide to its customers. Because they cannot. Period. The government cannot tell a private company what legal goods and services it can provide and at what price.

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what is covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

This, to me, is a far more egregious violation our individual liberties and our freedom of choice when it comes to health insurance.

The argument that the "contraceptive mandate," as the requirement is becoming known in the main stream media (perhaps to hide the abortion coverage in the mandate) is specious, at best. If a religious institution purchases health insurance from any insurance company, their money is going to cover these disputed "women's health services."

Blue Cross, for example, does not have a specific account set up for Policy A, where all claims are paid through that account. Rather, monies paid for Policy A go into the general account, where all claims are paid, even "women's health services."

Could it be that the argument against the mandate is more about access to these services for religious women? Insurance coverage would make the services less costly, and thus more accessible. If that is the debate, the argument is more about encouraging people to follow the teachings of that religion, rather than changing a health insurance policy.

ObamaCare is a complete invasion into our freedoms and liberties. We simply cannot allow the federal government to force us to purchase a product from a private company, and then tell that private company what that product includes and how much to charge.

ObamaCare is patently unconstitutional and MUST be repealed. Our freedom and future is too important to let this stand.

UPDATE: 2:02pm 2/10/12

The President has announced that he plans to use power that he does not have to revert a decision that he should never have made.

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway. "We think this is a very workable solution," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Fox News, adding that it respects "religious objections."

Too bad that the "solution" does not respect the US Constitution.

A president of the United States DOES NOT have the authority to tell a private business what products it must sell and at what price. That is what just happened today. This would be akin to the president telling McDonald's that it must offer the McRib year-round and only charge $1 for it. It would not be fair to offer a popular meal choice only part of the year and at a higher price.

Interestingly, during his speech today, he all but admitted the initial decision was rushed, purportedly to avoid the issue becoming a political football.

...it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option, that we needed to move this faster. So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.

Seems more likely to me that the president rushed this decision in order to get it done well ahead of the elections this fall. The administration took a "week" instead of a "year," and got themselves into hot water politically. The rushed decision turned the issue from a political football into a political punching bag, and Obama was the one getting punched.

This is what happens when a politician has no regard for the constitution and what he is legally allowed to do; when he doesn't care about the consequences of his decisions, or the people it affects. And another reason why ObamaCare must -- and will -- go.

Obama: Constitution Won't Let Me "Force Congress" to Do What I Want

We have a sitting president complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation.

That damn Constitution with all its checks and balances, Obama seemed to be saying on the Today show this morning with Matt Lauer:

It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.

It seems that Obama would be much more comfortable in a more autocratic system, where he can just push through anything he wants than with a government where the power is more evenly divided (emphasis added):

"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said. "That's just the nature of being president," he said.

Yes, Barack, working with co-equal branches of government is what this country is all about. Darn it all!

In Federalist Papers 47, James Madison tells us that the separation of powers that Obama seems to lament is essential to liberty:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We already know that Obama sees the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties that didn't address redistributive policies and social justice, we now find he thinks the U.S. Constitution as an impediment.

...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Recently, the Obama tried to negate the Supreme Court by deeming his own recess appointments constitutional.

The opinion “relies on no Supreme Court decision and many conclusions are unsupported in law or the Constitution,” (Sen. Charles) Grassley said in a statement. He added later that the opinion “flies in the face of more than 90 years of historical practice.”

We also heard from US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg whining to an Egyptian television audience that our constitution is just too darn old:

"(We have) “oldest written constitution still in force in the world... I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

Could it be, your Honor and Mr. President, that our constitution is the oldest because it is the best?

We have a sitting president and a Supreme Court justice complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation. The connection between the two? Oh yeah, they are both Liberals.

Chrysler runs Obama campaign spot during the Super Bowl

Chrysler just handed President Obama a big, sloppy, wet kiss in the form of a free campaign ad during the Super Bowl.

In a spot dubbed Halftime in America, Clint Eastwood declared that it’s “halftime in America and our second half’s about to begin,” which could be interpreted as a reference to Obama’s second term. 

Gee, ya think so? Considering that President Reagan ran in 1984 on It's Morning in America using an eerily similar ad, any semblance with Halftime in America is pure coincidence.

Why would we want to return to where we were, just four short years ago closes the Reagan ad. Would that line be so out of place in the Obama -- er, Chrysler ad?

Ol' Clint sings the praises -- not of Chrysler's cars -- but of massive government bailout:

We all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

We find a way by borrowing billions of dollars, then loaning those dollars at advantageous terms to private business, putting the American people on the hook for $1.3 billion.

U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.
Now (CBO) estimates, by the time the $80 billion program is completely wrapped up, taxpayers will have lost $14 billion.

We find a way by overspending:

According to the Government Accountability Office... the government has spent $12.5 billion so far to bail out a $5 billion company (Chrysler).

Chrysler's CEO Sergio Marchionne assures there is no quid for Obama's quo:

“It was not intended to be any type of a political overture on our part,” Marchionne said. “Nobody inside Chrysler was attempting to influence decisions. The message is sufficiently universal and neutral that it should be appealing to everybody in this country and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t get utilized as political fodder in a debate.”

Of course you do, Mr. Marchionne, of course you do. He is shocked -- shocked to think "Halftime in America" would be interpreted as political fodder or is political payback.

Gualberto Ranieri, chief spokesman for Marchionne and for Chrysler, declined to comment on the notion that the advertisement was a thank-you gift to the Obama administration. "The advertisement speaks for itself," said Ranieri.

Maybe it is not payback, but a down-payment:

The Obama administration has yet to act on a $3.5 billion loan proposal from Chrysler for Department of Energy funds to help spur the development of more fuel-efficient automobiles.

White House spoke-flak, Jay Carney, promises that neither Obama nor his administration had any involvement in the spot’s creation. No, no one is suggesting they helped "create" the ad. Or, did they?

"And it's good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die, because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world." Obama 1/31/12 (just last week! What a coincidence!)

I will be eagerly awaiting the Oval Office to demand an investigation to make sure the Chrysler Corporation isn't injecting a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, as Obama warned us after the Citizens United case. After all, The public interest requires nothing less, as Obama said.

We just know that Obama wouldn't use the auto industry for a photo-op, would he?

The Associated Press says for Obama, the auto bailout is a case study for his efforts to revive the economy and a potential point of contrast with Republican Mitt Romney, who opposed Obama's decision to pour billions of dollars into the auto companies. If Romney wins the GOP nomination, expect to hear a lot about the car industry.

Starting with this ad from Chrysler. Halftime in America. I can see the bumper stickers already.


UPDATE: Detroit is on such a rebound, the producers of the ad didn't feel the need to actually film the spot in Michigan, or anywhere nearby:

But contrary to what the might ad suggest, the spot was actually filmed in New Orleans and Los Angles. “Yes, part of it was filmed in New Orleans . . . and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” Dianna Gutierrez said.

No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad. Rather like the text of Obama's State of the Union address.

Obama Has His Priorities in Order: To Be Cool Again

In this delightful post on The Ulsterman Report blog, a Washington insider suggests that Obama desperately wants to be "cool again."

(Obama) was actually in on a meeting with some of the Plouffe gang and told them more than once he wanted to be cool again. “Like in ’08. We were the sh-t back in 08″. Those are the president’s words. He is obsessed with getting back to being cool like in ’08.

Well, isn't that special.

Instead of striving towards being a great president and leader; instead of wanting to get this country out of the economic doldrums, the President of the United States is apparently channeling his inner teenager.

Even that impromptu singing performance on the stage of the Apollo Theater was reportedly staged, planned all along.

Regarding that little singing bit the president did recently... That moment was rehearsed to death. As in over and over and over again... I wonder though if America would be so impressed if they knew how many hours the f***ing President of the United States spent practicing for those few seconds of song.

The blog goes on to say he hired people to pose as outsiders and post glowing comments, like "He's so cool."

And there were about 40 or 50 people in the crowd who had been instructed to “cheer loudly” the singing. And you can see how grateful the president is at the audience’s reaction. The guy needs that approval so damn much. The whole thing from beginning to end was a highly orchestrated effort. Not one second of it was spontaneous.

One minute this guy is posing as a president; one moment he tells us that Jesus supports the Buffet rule, and now he wants to be the big man on campus.

I have no idea if this post has any truth in it; but, I can certainly see it with this guy.

Desperate times indeed at the Obama White House. Desperate, sad, and pathetic times. Good thing there is such a short time left.

Obama Attorney General Covering Up Departmental Bribery?

Obama's Attorney General is quickly becoming one of the most ineffectual AGs since Clinton's Janet Reno or the most corrupt since Nixon's John Mitchell.

The Daily Caller web site is reporting that Eric Holder's Justice Department may be covering up bribery charges against "two DOJ prosecutors (who) accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives, according to a "trustworthy" source.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

Just add this to the list of real crimes that Holder is ignoring:

Guns being given to Mexican drug lords by the ATF.

Voter fraud in Indiana that allegedly helped elect his boss.

Black Panther members with weapons outside of polling places.

Many of these debacles stem from Holder’s failure to do due diligence: He failed to consult the intelligence community before giving the Christmas bomber a Miranda warning; he failed to read the memos in which career prosecutors explained why CIA prosecutions were a legal dead end; he failed to consult New York officials about trying Mohammed in their city; he failed to conduct even a cursory review before pushing Obama to announce the closure of Guantanamo; he failed to read the Arizona immigration law before publicly opposing it. One such failure is a mistake; this many is a pattern of gross incompetence.

Apparently, he is too busy prosecuting CIA agents for following orders, hiding his own legal briefs from Congress, suing states over laws they pass, and planning civilian trials for Muslim terrorists.

Obama's Economy: CBO Says Several More Years of Misery and Failure

After three full years of Obama economic policy, the United States is mired in an anemic recovery the likes of which -- and the length of which -- we have not seen since the Great Depression.

Make no mistake about it: this is Obama's economy.

As much as he tries to spin and play the blame game, where everything from George Bush, Japanese disasters, European economic collapse, unrest in the Middle East (fully supported by Obama, by the way), right down to ATM machines and airport kiosks are at fault, it is Obama's policies that are at the root of the economic stagnation we are experiencing.

While those factors have each played a role and most experts will attest that recessions spawned from financial failure are harder to recover from, we have seen no real, lasting signs that this recovery is taking root.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips said, “While the Obama Administration brags about 22 months of private sector growth, they fail to provide context; that pace is so sluggish that it doesn’t even keep up with basic demographic growth. It’s a nice statistic to repeat, but there’s no real economic impact.”

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the economy will perform below its potential for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years... the agency expects that the economy’s output will remain below its potential until 2018”

After three full years of Obama economic policy, the United States is mired in an anemic recovery the likes of which -- and the length of which -- we have not seen since the Great Depression.

Under Obama's watch, we have seen years of stagnant growth, high unemployment, higher still underemployment. The slight uptick in December, as predicted by many, was due to holiday retail help and courier services; many of these jobs went away in January.

Employment growth probably slowed in January as messengers hired during the busy holiday shopping season were laid off, but the improving labor market trend should remain intact...

Employment remains about 6.1 million below its pre-recession level. There are no jobs for three out of every four unemployed people and 23.7 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed.

According to this same CBO report, the unemployment rate will be 8.9 percent on Election Day... 9.1 percent in 2013 and remain at 7 percent or above through 2015. This is based on what is being called fairly optimistic assumptions.

Obama has placed on us massive annual budget deficits as far as the eye can see and a national debt that is truly unfathomable. So says the Concord Coalition, a group that can hardly be called politically conservative:

The Concord Plausible Baseline, which applies more realistic assumptions about future policy decisions to the CBO’s data, shows annual deficits remaining in the trillion dollar range throughout the next 10 years and totaling almost $12 trillion.

Despite the CBO's prediction that tax revenues will increase, we have seen trillion dolar deficits each year of Obama's term and will see trillion dollar increases to the national debt for the foreseeable future.

In dollar terms, the anticipated increase in federal tax revenue from fiscal 2011 ($2.302 trillion) to fiscal 2014 ($3.313 trillion) is $1.011 trillion. That is an increase of 43.9 percent.

Last year, 2011, was literally the worst year for housing in the nation's history ever; we saw new home sales less than half of what is expected in a healthy economy (unexpectedly!). And, housing prices continue their free fall in nearly all cities. Foreclosure numbers should continue to rise, after an appearance of improvemet in 2011, likely due to procedural delays and pressure from Washington to delay the inevitable:

Paperwork issues, robo-signing and regulatory matters have slowed the process down. Now, it takes 348 days on average to process a foreclosure - two months longer than it took in 2010... There's still six million foreclosed homes that need to be processed.

The slowed foreclosure rate is a trend not likely to continue.

There were strong signs in the second half of 2011 that lenders are finally beginning to push through some of the delayed foreclosures in select local markets. We expect that trend to continue this year, boosting foreclosure activity for 2012 higher than it was in 2011, though still below the peak of 2010.

Real estate analyst Rick Sharga told CBS News (the) U.S. has two to three "challenging" years before the housing crisis is over.

Obama's economic record is abysmal. He STILL(!) tells us (repeatedly) that he inherited the problem. Perhaps that may be so; but the president has done nothing to improve the situation and likely has made it worse.

The real problem is not that Obama inherited the recession (I say he asked for it, but that is another post). The problem is that his policies has caused the economic woes to linger (far) longer than after any recession since the Great Depression.

When compared to the three other slowest post-war recoveries, the current “jobless recovery” has been thought unique in its lack of employment growth.

One of the major differences between the current recession and previous recessions is the seemingly anti-business rhetoric and policies of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

In addition to repeated attacks on American business.. an expensive stimulus package... the health care bill... proposed high taxes on carbon emissions, large increases in taxes on higher income individuals, corporate profits, and capital gains as part of vocal attacks on “billionaires”... a financial reform bill that is a complicated and a politically driven mixture of sensible reforms, and senseless changes that have little to do with stabilizing the financial architecture, or correcting what was defective in prior regulations.

It is no surprise that this rhetoric and the proposed and actual policies discouraged business investment and slowed down the recovery.

Compared to all other recessions since the 1930's the current slow recovery is most similar to the Great Depression.

• Spending. Large increases in federal spending under Roosevelt and Obama did nothing to help unemployment, which remained high. Presidents Roosevelt and Obama responded similarly to the crises. They talked about balancing the federal budget, but instead resorted to massive spending... The results were budget deficits and higher unemployment.
• Tax Increases. During the Great Depression Roosevelt raised both income and excise taxes. Most of the tax hikes under Obama are planned for the future. Thus far we have seen proposed tax hikes on products such as cigarettes, liquor, plane tickets, and soft drinks.. capital gains tax, the income tax, and the estate tax.
• The Blame Game. Roosevelt sought scapegoats to explain his failure. Wall Street bankers were his favorites. He also blamed America’s top businessmen. Obama has followed FDR’s playbook of attacking Wall Street bankers and various corporate leaders.

Are you better off than you were four years ago? If so, you are among the very few who are.

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years.

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, up some $300 (annually).

Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent.

If it is true that financial recessions are harder to fix, shouldn't we have someone in the Oval Office who knows how to fix such problems? Obama apparently doesn't. Shouldn't we have someone in the Oval Office who know how to create jobs (or, even had one)? Obama apparently doesn't. The Hope and Change thing is over; it was a failure and will continue to fail us.

Obama voters, be honest. Is this the Change you expected Obama to deliver? Are these truly the policies that we have been waiting for? If so, give him four more years, and you will see four more years of failure.

Obama's Union Speech: More of the Same Boring-Ass Crap -- Part II

Who could have predicted this?

President Obama's State of the Union address last night was, in fact, more of the same boring-ass crap.

The Republican National Committee (full disclosure, the RNC is fighting to remove Obama from office) put together a brilliant montage of Obama's last three SOTU addresses, showing the same tried and tired rhetoric used over-and-over throughout all three speeches.

For one of the most accomplished presidents in our nation's history, it appears Obama really hasn't accomplished much, if he needs to urge us year after year to do the same things he hasn't done yet.

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.

Here are just a few of the rehashed talking points from the past three SOTU speeches:

Obama 2010: "And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system."
Obama 2011: "I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration."
Obama 2012: "I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration."

Obama 2010: "It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.
Obama 2012: "Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.

Obama 2011: "We'll put more people to work fixing crumbling roads and bridges."
Obama 2012: "So much of America needs to be rebuilt; we've got crumbling roads and bridges."

Well, Barack, you have less than a year left in office. Better get started.

Obama's Union Speech: More of the Same Boring-Ass Crap

A few things he won't mention: Keystone Pipeline; Solyndra; the real unemployment rate; anything worth a damn

When Obama delivers the State of the Union address tonight, I anticipate a long, boring speech filled with the same tired rhetoric, the same pathetic attempts to paint his first term as a success, and a litany of worn-out ideas that have failed the country and not passed Congress.

I see him launching full-on blame mode. Blame the do-nothing Congress; blame the GOP; blame the "right-wing" media; blame natural disasters; and -- of course -- blame George Bush for everything up to Billy Cundiff's missed field goal.

Just don't blame yourself.

The millionaires and billionaires need to pay more so that our most vulnerable citizens won't have to fend for themselves. Because the GOP just wants to give tax breaks to fat cats on Wall Street.

Greedy companies that take money from the people and outsource jobs for fun and profit (yet he will fail to mention that he just outsourced jobs to a foreign country).

"We need equal opportunity for all; not for a connected few," failing to mention his buddy Warren Buffet is making big bucks from the Keystone decision or that Obama backers at green companies are getting
big government cash

It is not fair, he will plead; spreading the lie about Warren Buffett's secretary and taxes (failing to mention that it is not fair that she will get a plum seat for the speech and you don't). We need a government that will ensure equal opportunity for all not for a few connected people (failing to mention his buddy Warren is making big bucks from the Keystone decision or that Obama backers at green companies are getting big government cash).

He will lament those evil rich people paying only 15% of their income in taxes (not any one person in particular, mind you), completely distorting the truth of the matter.

He will either be laser-focused on jobs or think about jobs from the moment he wakes up; or some other meaningless platitude. Yet, he won't mention that his laser-focus is watching himself allow hundreds of thousands of potential jobs to slip away in the name of politics.

Here are just a few of the tired cliches that Obama will tread out:

tax increases
revenue enhancements
millionaires and billionaires
fairness and the lack thereof
fat cats on Wall Street
equal opportunity and outcomes
shared sacrifice
certain rich people paying 15% in taxes (who could that be?)
green jobs
turning the corner
out of the ditch or from the brink
turning the corner
job is not done
dirty water and air

A few things he won't mention:
Keystone Pipeline
Solyndra
high unemployment
the real unemployment rate
the underemployment rate
astronomical debt
skyrocketing misery index
plummeting consumer confidence
right track/wrong track poll
approval ratings
anything worth a damn

All in all, it will be less of a State of the Union speech than a State of the Onion. A Repeat of the Union address. Nothing new; nothing interesting; nothing that will work.

Obama just prays you don't notice.

Iran and Brazil Hand Obama Keystone Cover

Obama has just been handed two gifts that should allow him to approve the project under circumstances that only the hardest-core lefties would hold against him -- and would quiet the GOP in the process.

President Obama's Keystone pipeline indecision puts him square between two opposing voices: One one side, he wants to hand an election-year victory for his far-left supporters in the green movement who oppose the project; but that indecision opens him to criticism from the GOP who see the pipeline as a supply of jobs and non-Mid East oil.

After facing a wave of protest from environmentalists opposed to the project, the State Department announced in November that it would explore a new route for the pipeline and pushed a final decision on the controversial project past the 2012 election.

"The president won't stand up to his political base even in the name of creating American jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Obama is -- surprisingly -- blaming the Republicans for imposing a deadline, rather than allow Obama to put the decision off until after the 2012 election.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said.

The battle seems to be over a relatively short section of the pipeline that would pass through Nebraska, too close to ground water resources for some. Obama claims that the government needs more time to research the project, despite the fact that the government has known about the project since 2008.

In announcing the decision, President Obama said the government did not have enough time to review the oil pipeline...

And, despite the fact that Obama's own state department issued a report that seems to support the current route.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline route through the Sand Hills is as good as any when it comes to safety and environmental impact, according to a federal report released Friday.

The central finding of the examination — that the proposed pipeline would have little adverse impact on the environment —

But the report also provided ammunition for those on the other side, who say a high-pressure, 36-inch crude-oil pipeline presents an unreasonable risk to the groundwater beneath the Sand Hills, which provides 78 percent of the state's drinking water and 83 percent of its water for crop irrigation.

Fortunately, Obama has just been handed two gifts that should allow him to approve the project under circumstances that only the hardest-core lefties would hold against him -- and would quiet the GOP in the process.

1. Iran's threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

2. Brazil's decision to sell its oil to China.

Iran has been threatening for weeks to militarily close the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel in the Red Sea where 15 million barrels of oil pass each day. The European Union's decision to boycott Iranian oil has only raised the stakes.

(Iranian Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail) Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."

Given the threat, Obama has a golden pass to green light the pipeline, in the interests national security. Obama should immediately call Iran's bluff; if Iran is going to squeeze the supply of oil through Hormuz, Obama should announce that we have no choice but to find other sources. The US cannot re-open the route? OK; the oil sands of Canada will suit us just fine.

Iran has also been reportedly pressuring the Saudis into limiting the supplies of oil to the West. All the more reason to open the spigots on this side of the globe.

As that drama unfolds, Brazil has apparently decided to sell most of its newly drilled oil to China, much to the dismay of the Obama administration, who has been a huge supporter of Brizil's oil drilling goals.

President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.

Here again, Obama is handed a perfect excuse to reverse course on the pipeline decision. Conditions on the ground have changed. Obama can simply announce that his initial decision to not decide until 2013 was based in part on his expectation of Brazilian oil coming here. Since Brazil has opted to sell to China, Obama could plead that he has no other choice but to allow the pipeline.

Obama has to know that the jobs, whatever the number, will help; even if that help is only a political victory.

"I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

One commenter to the New York Post said it well:

Never has a president governed so transparently in his own best interests at the expense of the good of his country.

Obama has been handed a gift, two gifts, that should allow him to drop his pander to the far-left and (finally!) live up to his promise to create jobs. Simply approve the project with the caveat that an alternative route through Nebraska be found, allowing work to begin on other sections of the pipe.


Why do I think this is a gift he won't accept?

No, Mr. President, You Do Not Get to do Whatever You Want

Note that the payroll tax bill was passed by the Senate in a pro-forma session.

Emperor Obama is making his disdain for the US Congress, the US Constitution, and centuries of precedent even more clear in remarks today about his "recess" appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.

No, Mr. President, you do not.

The US Constitution makes it perfectly clear what a president "can" do regarding these appointments (emphasis added):

Section 2, Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The US Senate web site clearly shows that the Senate is in session. While, one could argue that the Senate meeting in pro-forma session is a political trick to thwart Obama's ability for a recess appointment, the Senate is not in recess. Period.

Obama has criticized his predecessor for making recess appointments, but so has at least one member of Obama's Department of Justice:

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Chief Justice John Roberts that "the [congressional] recess has to be longer than 3 days" for the president to have the power to make a recess appointment...

For those who challenge that a pro-forma session is not a "true" Senate session, note that the payroll tax bill was passed by the Senate on December 23, 2011, while the Senate was in pro-forma session. Either Congress is in session or not; Obama does not get to decide when the Senate is open for business and when it is not. That is the job of the House, which apparently, did not approve of the Senate going into recess.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

While it is almost a certainty that the GOP-led House did not approve a Senate recess for the sole purpose of blocking these appointments, the law is the law. Like it or not; political games or not.

Rush Limbaugh, for what it is worth, actually summarized the issue well:

If Congress "refuses to act," it is his job to sit down and talk to 'em and make 'em act and get them to vote the way he wants. He does not have the authority to run roughshod over them.

Some House Republicans are clearly playing political games; Obama should call them out rather than ignore the law. The American people dislike Congress more than the president. He should lambaste the GOP for their shenanigans rather than causing a potential constitutional crisis.

Obama must rescind these appointments and allow the Senate to "advise and consent" on these individuals. If the president feels he does not need to follow the law, then who does?

Boehner Tells Dems: Fine. Have Your Damn Two Month Cut; Just Start Breathing Again

If the Democrats tell the House, Vote my way or I will hold my breath until I turn blue, then so be it.

As the parent of small children, I am quite familiar with the Please, Please, Please, Pretty Please, Dad routine. When a child does not get his way, he will often resort to saying Please over and over until you want to scream.

"Good" parents don't give into this; but, face it folks, once in a while we all say Screw it; have what you want, kid. Just shut up!

That is exactly what happened in Washington today. Rep. John Boehner and some Repubs in the House threw up their hands and told Obama, Screw it; have what you want, kid. Just shut up!

Congratulations to Obama and the Dems who managed to take a 12 month tax cut and reduce it to two months -- and guarantee that we will have to go through this crap all over again in a few weeks.

I may not agree with what Boehner did; but if the Democrats want to be juvenile and tell the House, Vote my way or I will hold my breath until I turn blue, then so be it.

I just can't wait until that first paycheck in January and the American people say: What tax cut?? I don't see any more money here? Where's my $40?

I look forward to the sob stories when the payroll companies cannot make the required software changes to get these new rules in effect, creating substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.

And, of course, when we all realize that the payroll "holiday" is a sham, did not help the economy in 2011, and will not work in 2012 either.

Congrats, Obama. I so look forward to hearing this foolish debate all over again in February.

Obama to Congress: Joe from Jersey Needs his Pizza!!

Did I really just hear a president of the United States tell Congress to go back in session so that Joe from New Jersey can have pizza night with his kids? Really? What the hell have we come to in this country?

I am just plain shocked and saddened -- nauseated really -- to hear these ridiculous stories from people whose lives would end (one guy, literally) if they lose their $40.

This is a sad, sad chapter in American history, courtesy of Barack Obama.

WWRLD: What Would a Real Leader Do?

Call me naive, if you want.

But, the House of Representatives has one bill, the Senate has another. The House won't vote for the Senate bill, the Senate won't vote for the House bill.

Wouldn't a real leader step up and urge both sides to come together and get things done, rather than criticizing one side in deference for the other?

Just a random thought for the day....

Obama's $40 Deception

Obama wants you to think you will lose $40 a week if the payroll tax doesn't pass. Not quite....


Expect President Obama to start preaching about the average American family having $40 less to spend or save with each paycheck if the payroll tax "holiday" does not pass Congress.

That actually works out to a paltry $20 less per week for a household making the average $63,000 per year. Obama's math, apparently, assumes bi-weekly paychecks. But, he won't tell you that....

The actual figure being passed around Washington is $1,000 per year, which works out to $19.23 per week for the average American.

This $40 calculus just sounds scarier than the reality.

A married couple making $30,000 and filing jointly... will only save $600. It’s even more dramatic for those making less: a married couple making $20,000 and filing jointly... will only save $400.

Also, watch out for the alleged sob stories from people that Team Obama is collecting. We will be slammed with a stream of tear-jerk stories from "typical Americans."

A person from New Mexico said "$40 less a paycheck means I will have to pick between my insulin and the water bill. It means never being able to see my doctor -- even though I have insurance."

What did that person do this time last year? Because, as we all know, this tax holiday has been in place since January 2011.

These are anonymous stories posted on the White House website with no verification. Anyone can say anything and they certainly will.

This is just more Say Anything politics to get some politician elected. Don't fall for it.

This countdown clock is actually on the White House website.
Tacky enough for ya?
Quick, someone call Jack Bauer before it gets to zero!!

UPDATED: 12:55 12/22/11

It has already started. Check out this post on the White House whine site: $40 a week. The lie is starting to take hold.



Not to make light of your financial situation, T.K., but if you earn $40 in five hours, I assume you work for $8 per hour. Full-time at $8/hour works out to $16,640 a year (8x40x52). In that case, you will lose $6 a week, not $40, if the payroll tax rate returns to where it was in 2010.

Obama to Trade Terrorist for Taliban Talk?

Releasing terrorist with known Al-Qaeda connections? What could possibly go wrong?

In yet another bizarre chapter of President Obama's pathetic foreign policy, Reuters is reporting that the administration is weighing the release of an "unspecified number" of Taliban detainees at Guantanamo (aka terrorists) in exchange for prmises that the Taliban will denounce international terrorism.

Reuters has learned, the United States is considering the transfer of an unspecified number of Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay military prison into Afghan government custody.

It has asked representatives of the Taliban to match that confidence-building measure with some of their own. Those could include a denunciation of international terrorism and a public willingness to enter formal political talks

Guantanamo detainees have been released to foreign governments - and sometimes set free by them - before. But the transfer as part of a diplomatic negotiation appears unprecedented.

In other words, we will release known terrorists caught on the battlefield to the corrupt Afghan government if the Taliban simply promises to decry terrorism, in the hopes they will come to peace talks. The detainees sought for release may include high-level Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo in peace talks even though there is no evidence that they are reconcilable.

"The challenges are enormous," a second senior U.S. official acknowledged. "But if you're where we are ... you can't not try. You have to find out what's out there."

Those are not exactly the most confidence-inspiring words to come from a senior U.S. official. We'll just release some terrorists and see what happens. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG??

But, America, Reuters assures us that we can feel safe at night (and on airplanes) because there are slightly fewer that 20 Afghan citizens at Guantanamo... Fewer than 20 terrorists; where have I heard that number before?

Ten years after the repressive Taliban government was toppled, a hoped-for political resolution has become central to U.S. strategy to end a war that has killed nearly 3,000 foreign troops and cost the Pentagon alone $330 billion.

How about this, Obama: Hey, Taliban, we will stop killing you if you stop blowing up innocent people. If the Taliban are suffering declining militant attacks and a thinning of the Taliban's mid-level leadership, the US should be in a position of power and should dictate terms and not bow to long-standing demands of the waning enemy.

After all, the Taliban apparently no longer wants to be seen as a bad bunch of guys:

U.S. officials say the Taliban no longer wants to be the global pariah it was in the 1990s

Call me picky, but a militant group who -- according to Amnesty International -- position themselves in residential areas, target civilians trying to leave their homes, use civilians as human shields, launch attacks against resident government officials, torture detainees, and have destroyed more than 170 schools including more than 100 girls' schools are a bit more than a global pariah. (Apparently, they are a reliable negotiation partner, eh Barack?)

But, we'll just take them at their word, because renouncing violence, breaking with al Qaeda, and respecting the Afghan constitution - are not preconditions to starting talks. Why would the "repressive" Taliban lie?

At least one purported insurgent representative has turned out to be a fraud... (Afghan President Hamid Karzai) counseled caution in making sure that Taliban interlocutors are authentic -- and authentically seeking peace. The killing (of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani*), he said, "brought us in a shock to the recognition that we were actually talking to nobody..."

"There's a very real likelihood that these guys aren't serious ... " the third senior U.S. official said.

Yet as it moves ahead the peace initiative is fraught with challenge, Reuters explains. Gee, do ya think so? But, hey, you can't not try, right?

*Earlier this year, Burhanuddin Rabbani, who led the Afghan High Peace Council, was assassinated by a suicide bomber claiming to represent Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura Taliban.