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.

Is Obama Admitting Failure???

In an interview with 60 Minutes' Steve Croft, it sure sounds like Obama is admitting to failure:

I'm the captain and they're the crew on a ship, going through really bad storms.... "Do you think the captain's good—doing a good job?" People are going say, "You know what? A good captain would have had us in some smooth waters and sunny skies, at this point."

Mark this as one of the few times I have agreed with Obama. A better president would have had us in smoother waters right now. But, under Obama's stewardship, we are going deeper into the storm, straight for the iceberg.

Unlike certain other "captains" who were able to right the ship and steer out of the storm much more quickly.

Reagan
Clinton
Bush

I always believed that this was a long-term project… It was going to take more than one term. Probably takes more than one president.

I couldn't agree more. Time for one more president; starting in 2012.

"This is Captain Obama, the worst steward of the American economy since the nation's founding. Welcome to the Titanic, folks."

Has President Obama Forgotten Who the President Is?

In his speech Tuesday, Barack Obama showed us that is truly delusional. He seems to want us to forget who has been president the past three years -- he apparently has.

President Obama, before a small crowd in Osawatomie, Kansas today, gave one of the more bizarre political speeches in recent history.

As he rattled of a litany of problems with the country, Obama sounded more like a candidate for the presidency than an incumbent. It was a speech more fitting for a party nomination acceptance than a kick-off to a bid for a second term.

In a speech that ran for nearly an hour and included more than 5,000 words, Obama offered no new ideas, no new plans, and no celebration of past success, and scant few references to any thing he has done to address the problems of our nation; instead he sought to divide the country by class, by wealth, or by political affiliation, all the while charging us to come together as a nation.

But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. .. it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we're still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

Mr. Obama, who exactly has been in charge since 2008? Apparently, you. What have you done to solve these problems? Apparently, nothing.

Obama proceeded to lament the economic malaise, political gridlock and partisanship, and lack of growth and prosperity without pausing for a moment to consider the sad irony that he has produced not a single result that would reverse any of these problems.

And ever since, there's been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness.
Throughout the country, it's sparked protests and political movements -- from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It's left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter)

It seems to me, Mr. President, these problems should be a topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion within your White House, rather than a joke in some campaign speech. What exaclty have you done to restore growth and prosperity? (Laughter.)

And, how exactly does the president of the United States ensure restored balance and fairness? Will you ignore the details and allow us to fill in the blanks, much like you did with your specious "Hope and Change" rhetoric four years ago?

In one breath, Obama casts aspersions upon the technologies of the past several decades that have made the workplace more efficient and safer, seeming again to blame ATMs and airport kisoks for the high unemployment we are facing.

Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it's made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world... Steel mills that needed 100 -- or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees... And these changes didn't just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

In the next breath, he celebrates today's innovation economy, suggesting that we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Which is it, Mr. Obama? Are high-tech manufacturing advances the cause of the problem or the path out?

In one reference to a Kansas company, Marvin Doors and Windows, he celebrated the workers' agree(ing) to give up some perks and some pay when times get tough. Yet, just a few months ago when Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin asked the same of state workers there, Obama snarled that Walker was unleashing an 'assault'" on those workers.

More odd, Obama lamented the economy under his predecessor:

The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class...

While the economic growth under President Bush was strong, but not stellar, the growth was more than double than we've seen under Obama's charge.

Unemployment during Bush's presidency hit half of what we've seen during Obama's tenure. As for massive deficits, Obama's deficit spending already dwarfs that of Bush, in less than half of the time in office.

Obama seems to forget, too, whom he is hitting up for campaign cash, lamenting:

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.

while raking in the dough from his evil millionaires and billionaires (though not as many as GOP candidate Mitt Romney).

But, the real head scratcher is that Obama could find no recent president to compare to; rather, he cast us back to the halcyon days of Teddy Roosevelt, referencing a speech that Roosevelt gave two years after leaving office that he used to start a failed campaign for president, which reportedly defined the progressive era.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

Guaranteed opportunity? What exactly does that mean, Mr. Obama. Or will you leave that definition to the imagination, too.

His attempts to channel Reagan and Truman having failed, Obama told us that he still believes "in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago." Don't you remember how good it was during Roosevelt's administration? Neither do I.

In this speech Tuesday, Barack Obama showed us that is truly delusional. He seems to want us to forget who has been president the past three years -- he apparently has. He wants us to ignore the stagant economy, the amemic real estate market, the obscene and unchanging unemployment figures, the record-low consumer and business confidence he has inspired. Instead, he wants us to give him four more years to figure out how to fix these ills.

Mr. Obama, there are no do-overs in the White House.

We fell for his soaring rhetoric and empty promises in 2008. For our faith, we got higher unemployment, flat economic growth, a worse real estate market, lowered expectations for our children, and a slate of broken ideals and promises.

Please don't let it happen again.

Unemployment Numbers only a Liberal Could Love

President Obama can be the only person who could possibly be happy with this week's unemployment figures.

According to the report, more than 400,000 people lost their jobs last week and another 315,000 were so disgusted and frustrated with the job market that they gave up looking for work.

The economy created only 120,000 new jobs, only half of the amount experts say the U.S. needs to maintain employment levels.

With more than 700,000 on the negative side and only 120,000 on the positive side, I for one do not see this as a good sign. It is a shame that Obama does.

Does US AG Holder Believe a Law is Constitutional Because He Wants it to Be?

US AG Eric Holder seems to suggest that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it's constitutional and finds it "troubling" that the American people might want to check that it's legal.

Is it possible that the US has an Attorney General who thinks that a law is Constitutional merely because the president wants it to be? Is the country's top law enforcement official saying we should make it up as we go along? It seems so.

Responding to the Virginia court decision that the ObamaCare insurance mandate (the requirement that all US citizens be required to buy health insurance) is illegal, AG Eric Holder suggests that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it is constitutional:

Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work. The legal arguments made against the (health care reform law) gloss over this problem...

Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans... who've been locked out of our health insurance markets, and shifting more costs onto families who've acted responsibly.

Perhaps so; but the mere fact that a law would do something presumably good, does not make it Constitutional. Remember when Sen. Tom Coburn asked Supreme Court justice nominee Elana Kagan about a law requiring we eat fruit?

Senator Coburn asked Kagan whether it would "violate the commerce clause" if Congress passed a law mandating that "you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day."

Certainly, if all Americans ate fruit and veggies every day, we would get healthier and our medical costs would go down. So, why can't the US Congress make such a law? Explains Kagan later in the sessions:

"I think that there are limits on the commerce clause," Kagan said,"primarily about non-economic activity and Congress not being able to regulate non-economic activity."

If that is so -- and it is -- isn't deciding to not buy something by definition "non-economic activity"? Are we going to allow our federal government to measure the potential impact of everything that we don't do?

In another recent ObamaCare lawsuit, Judge Norman Moon decided just that:

...there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.

If we allow this, the government can come up with a "rational basis" to make us do or purchase anything we normally wouldn't; the list of things that we could be forced to "substantially affect the interstate health care market" is endless. But, none of these things would be ethical, moral, or legal. Including being forced to buy health insurance.

So stipulates U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson:

No Supreme Court decision has authorized Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

Somehow Holder and the Democrats can't understand why unprecendented numbers of the American people are opposed to this provision and find it "troubling" that the American people might want to ensure its legality.

So, should we just take Obama at his word that this thing is totally legal, Mr. Attorney General? Yup:

Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made... supporters of repeal should work with us to implement this law effectively.

Let the 60% of Americans who want ObamaCare repealed know that their president and his staff want them to drop their silly arguments and just get with the program. I am right and you are wrong. I won and you lost. It's my way or prison time.

White House spokeman Robert Gibbs assures us "the White House was not surprised by the ruling." Mr. Gibbs, anyone who believes in the US Constitution was not surprised.