President to help middle class by paying them in fairness. Middle class not sure if it constitutes legal tender.

Not that Buffett

Every now and then, an issue comes up that allows me to truly gauge the intelligence of the American people.  Well, I’m excited to report that such an issue has arisen: the Buffett Rule.  No, we’re not talking about my personal hero Jimmy Buffett; he’s too drunk to be paying attention.  I’m talking about that annoying old man Warren Buffett, who has allowed his inability to satisfy his secretary sexually financially to quickly absorb as much of my talk radio time as Jesse Jackson and his merry band of hoodie-wearers.  In case you didn’t know, Mr. Buffett, a man worth billions, has made it part of his bucket list to complain about how he pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.  This has caused many to offer him the practical option of simply paying more in taxes if he’d prefer.  In fact, he can even pay my taxes while he’s at it. Not surprisingly, the idea of a rich guy asking the feds to take more of his money is something the lefties can’t ignore; especially when all of their other economic plans have been as successful as a one-armed man rowing his boat in a straight line.  So, instead of making an effort to propose an actual budget that could get a single vote in the House of Representatives, our little dictator in chief has asked the Senate to vote on the “Buffett Rule.”

Mr Obama is promoting the ‘Buffett rule’, which would set a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the income of millionaires, as he attempts to establish a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger and a former private equity executive.

You may be asking why I’m using the Buffett Rule as a barometer of American intelligence.  Well, the last time I looked, a majority of Americans supports the proposition of “making the rich pay their fair share,” even if they can’t tell you what “fair” means.  To put it simply: if anyone is in favor of this proposition, then they obviously sustained severe brain damage.  And to support this point, I’m not even going to make reference to the fact that, while the top two percent already pays a disproportionate share of the total federal income taxes, half of this country doesn’t pay any.

No.  I’m going to focus on a lie that is so blatantly obvious that someone would need to be comatose not to catch it.  What’s the lie, you ask?

Still, throughout his speech, the message was clear: In 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrats are in favor of ‘fairness,’ of having those Americans who can afford to do so pay a bit more in taxes so that the rest of the country can thrive.

How is taking more money from the top 1% going to help the country “thrive?”  It’s a proven fact that the extra money won’t put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the national debt.  And it isn’t like we have a president who seems to care about deficits.  The implied argument being made here is that the middle class will somehow be helped by taxing the rich more.  How?  Well, notably absent from Barry’s plan is a tax cut for the middle class.  And it’s not like the extra money being extracted from the rich is going to be sent to the middle class.  So, how is this plan helping anyone?  That’s right, it’s not.  The Buffett Rule is a political stunt that the president hopes will distract everyone from the fact that his presidency has been less then stellar.

So, are you going to fall for this asshattery?  Of course not.  You’re one of my readers.  But your mom may not be.  So feel free to poke her with a sharp pin to make sure she responds to painful stimuli before giving her a summary of the foregoing.

Our little dictator lobs one over the bow of the Supreme Court. **UPDATE: Now with proof of my genius from the Fifth Circuit**

Lest you forget, oral arguments concerning Obamacare were had last week in the Supreme Court.  At stake: the individual mandate, and potentially the whole friggin’ law.  Despite the assertions of the legal geniuses residing in their ivory tower law schools, the Supremes didn’t seem convinced that forcing every American to purchase a product constituted “regulation of economic activity.”  In fact, at least five, and possibly six, of the Justices seemed skeptical about whether inactivity was the type of activity that could be regulated.  After the hearings were completed, everyone proceeded to overreact.

The most over-the-top, and predictable, overreaction came from the president yesterday.  In a speech delivered with the heads of Mexico and Canada(?), Barry proceeded to threaten the Supreme Court, just in case they were stupid enough to go against the family.

‘Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ Obama said.

I’m not sure overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented.  The last time I looked, the Constitution considers the Supreme Court to be  equal to Congress.  Moreover, the job of the Court has, for a few centuries, been to review legislation passed by Congress for its constitutionality.  In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned laws passed by Congress before.  Thus, doing so here would not be “unprecedented.”  Also, being that the Democrats had to bribe some of their own members in the Senate to get the thing passed in the first place, I’d hardly call Obamacare legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (not that the number of “yes” votes matters to a law’s constitutionality).

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the ‘unelected’ Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

I agree.  Activist judges suck.  But overturning Obamacare because the mandate is an unprecedented overreach of the federal government wouldn’t constitute “activism.”  In other words, deciding that forcing an American citizen to buy something doesn’t constitute “regulating interstate commerce” isn’t exactly crazy.  In fact, as I eluded to earlier, the only way the mandate could be upheld is if the Court decides “regulate” and “activity” actually mean the exact opposite.  Don’t get me wrong…it wouldn’t shock me if the Court performed such a manipulation of the English language, but its choosing not to do so certainly wouldn’t constitute radical activism.

‘I think it’s important…to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,’ Obama said.

‘The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

‘There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.’

In a courtroom, the foregoing is what’s called “irrelevant.”  I’m sure my life would be much more enjoyable if Congress passed a law requiring me to buy a helicopter, and then provided me the money if I couldn’t afford it; but the satisfaction of laughing at the losers stuck in traffic while I sip champagne in my underwear doesn’t make it constitutional.

It should be noted that Barry’s rant against the Supreme Court is just another example of his dictatorial dreams.  Who can forget the fits he still throws when Congress doesn’t give him what he wants?  And just as he has done in response to Congress’s alleged “failure to act,” (giving unelected agencies like the EPA and FDA truly unprecedented power, for example), I’m predicting Barry tries to do something extreme if the Court overturns Obamacare.  Packing the Courts, a la FDR?  Something else?  We’ll have to wait and see.

**UPDATE**

The Fifth Circuit today, while hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare, revealed that it reads this very blog as part of its preparation for important oral arguments.

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Obviously a Fifth Circuit judge isn’t going to go on the record saying he or she relies upon a blog to provide pertinent legal background, but it’s obvious, right?  Didn’t I already point out that the Supreme Court has stricken unconstitutional legislation before?  Who else can provide this kind of legal research?  The president himself isn’t even aware, and he used to be a law professor!

Obvious questions remain: Will the Justice Department respond?  Will Eric Holder find the time between running guns to Mexico and racially profiling nuns (I made up the latter)?  Will Barry write the letter himself, in purple crayon (the most diverse color)?  WILL THIS BLOG FINALLY GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES?

Obama can have you killed. But only if he wants to.

Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often.  Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show.  I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say.  And I’m really smrt.  (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose.  Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic.  I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they married know me).

As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief.  I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons.  The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans.  Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:

Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’

Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’

Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.

Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.

Look, I’m down with killing terrorists.  But the foregoing is asinine.  First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids.  What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean?  Who decides? The President decides, that’s who.  All by himself.

Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing.  It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution.  The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen.  That should concern you.  Why?  Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.

I know, I know…I can hear you now.  “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’  San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.”  Well, here’s Holder again:

‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.

In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere.  Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic.  Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen.  Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time.  Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t.  Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up.  Again, this should concern you.

The Constitution guarantees due process.  What is due process?  It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court.  Why do we have due process?  Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials.  According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:

As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’

When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same.  The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy.  Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself.  There’s been no vote; no legislative process.  Just one man’s ideas.

I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi.  It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make.  That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history.  Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him.  So did Hitler.  And Pol Pot.  The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”

Am I being extreme?  Maybe.  After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here.  And maybe they’re right.  Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.

 

Does Obama enjoy high gas prices?

In an effort to alleviate the headache that is caused whenever our president talks about all the economic progress we’re making (all because of his super-smart policies), I will be reminding my substantial readership that we’re still not doing very well.  And at least some of the reasons why are our president’s policies.

First, gas prices.  They’re high, and getting higher.  Now, I’m not one of those crazy conservatives who thinks Barry is purposefully doing stuff to increase gas prices.  After all, he’s just one man; and increasing the supply of oil can only be done by obscenely rich people with big drills.  (calm down.  it’s called sarcasm).  However, when I read statements made by his energy secretary, I have to wonder…

‘But is the overall goal to get our price’ of gasoline down, asked [Rep. Alan] Nunnelee.

‘No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,’ [Energy Secretary] Chu replied. ‘We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.’

In other words, the administration has no interest in doing anything to lower gas prices.  Instead, it believes giving additional subsidies to failing solar manufacturers and exploding electric cars is a better alternative to increasing the supply, and therefore decreasing the price, of stuff that actually works.  Don’t believe me?  Well, this is the same president who, during his campaign, stated that his desired cap and trade policy would make coal-generated electricity so expensive that no one could afford to use it.  Of course, his cap and trade idea didn’t work so well when it came time to vote on it, once everybody figured out there’s no realistic energy substitute to fill the void.

Back to oil.  The administration, and the left, want everyone to believe that there is nothing they can do to lower oil prices (it’s all those speculators after all).  Of course, this argument is undercut by the left’s simultaneous request to release some oil from America’s Strategic Oil Reserve.  Why would that work?  Because it would increase the supply of oil for a short time, thereby reducing the price.  Know what else would increase the supply of oil, except for the long term?  Drilling for it.  And as it turns out, we’re sitting on quite a bit of recoverable oil.  Bottom line: whether the prez cares about high gas prices or not is irrelevant, because he’s making no effort to do anything about it.  However, I predict that he will release some oil from our Reserves…just in time for the November elections.

Next topic: agriculture.

Hooray Democracy! Piggy, Duck!

We welcome your opinions!

I’m not like most people.  I enjoy saying “I told you so.”  Well, I told you so.

Remember the “Arab Spring?”  You know…when some of those Middle Eastern nations threw off the chains of oppression and rose up in a super-sized Democracy movement?  Sure you do.  And you likely recall that Egypt was the headlining band.  Certain loud portions of the Egyptian population didn’t like living under their stable dictator (never thought I’d use those two words together in a sentence), and so they caused a ruckus, which inevitably lead to the morons that run our country to work behind the scenes and pressure the dictator to step down.  Why?  Because Democracy totally rocks everywhere and at all times!

Some people with common sense, like me, were concerned about the movement in Egypt, however.  In fact, the whole thing reminded me a little too much of The Lord of the Flies.  That little island community started out with dreams of equality and free speech too (as long as you had the conch), but quickly devolved into the mean kid running around with his merry band of face-painted hooligans and ended with a boulder falling on Piggy.  Well, if Piggy were still alive, and living in Egypt, he should avoid standing under cliffs.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest winner in the first round of Egypt’s elections, has threatened to take to the streets if there is any attempt to manipulate results.

What is the Muslim Brotherhood?  Depends on who you ask.  If you ask a member of the Brotherhood, they’ll tell you it’s a moderate group that enjoys non-violent activities such as knitting and donkey-polo.  If you’re anyone else, its a fundamentalist islamic terrorist organization.  They’re credo is rather simple:

‘God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.’

Hmmm…that sounds slightly familiar.  And according to the Yahoo! news article linked above, the Brotherhood is the “moderate” group expected to share power in Egypt.

The first round of voting in the multi-stage election wraps up on Tuesday, with Islamist parties including the Brotherhood and hardline Salafist groups winning about two-thirds of votes.

The Salafists are even more hardcore than the Brotherhood (or are they just more open about it?) in their desires to rid the world of non-fundamentalist muslims.  Sounds like a government literally gushing with freedom and tolerance.

What does it all mean?  Under our current president, the Middle East has gone from bad to worse.  Iran is becoming nuclear; we’ve largely abandoned Israel; and we’ve supported the overthrow of a pro-West, moderate dictator in Egypt, in favor of new leadership comprised largely of anti-American fundamentalist muslims.  I’m glad all of that work Barry’s put in to improve America’s image in the Mid-East has worked so well.

All Hail King Barry. **UPDATE**

I do what I want.

Or should I call him Dictator…or just Dic.  It’s quite amazing really.  I still hear libs call George W. Bush’s War in Iraq “illegal,” even though he actually sought, and received, Congressional approval multiple times.  Let’s compare that to our current president.  As you all know, B.O. decided to send some of our military assets to Libya, to help Western Europe secure some oil.  Since that time, we’ve been part of a coordinated effort to assassinate the leader of a foreign country that’s in the middle of a civil war.  Oh, and our president never asked Congress’s approval to do any of it.

To be fair, the prez had the authority to act unilaterally against Libya under the War Powers Resolution.  The WPR only allows him to take such action for sixty days, however…and that time has expired.  In other words, in order for the U.S. to continue its military action in Libya, Congressional approval is necessary.  It’s the law.  Unless you’re supreme leader Barack Hussein Obama.

Today, instead of seeking Congressional approval, our democratically elected president took it upon himself to tell the American people, with their pesky laws, to pound sand.  See, according to Barack, since we’re only half-assing our way to killing Qaddafi, our involvement in the Libyan conflict is “limited.”  Since it’s “limited,” Congressional approval is not needed.  Obama’s assertions are astonishing for several reasons.  First, claiming that military action is “limited” because we’re only “providing support” to NATO, when we’re the only ones with the boats and missiles and stuff, is absurd.  Second, the President is doing the very thing his party has accused Bush of doing, i.e., waging an illegal war, except this time, it’s actually illegal.  Last but not least, the whole basis for not seeking Congressional approval, i.e., that Libya is a “limited operation,” is an exception that doesn’t actually exist in the War Powers Resolution.  Barry and his lawyers simply made it up.  Oh, and then there’s that whole “we’re not trying to assassinate Qaddafi (that would be illegal) but we keep firing missiles at his house” thing.

Considering that Barry has already appointed his own personal czars to direct all manner of government without any Congressional oversight, deciding he can wage war against anyone he chooses, whenever he gets bored, doesn’t come as much of a surprise.  After all, he did just send U.S. military into a foreign country without its consent to shoot an unarmed man in the face.  But I must admit, I’m becoming a little scared of our tyrant in Washington.  Remember, Hitler was elected democratically too.

**UPDATE**  Well, despite what ABC told me almost thirty days ago (see link above), apparently the prez gets 90 days, not 60, to seek approval from Congress regarding Libya.  Not that it matters, since Barry still hasn’t asked for permission.  Now, Boehner has warned B.O. to seek Congress’s approval by Sunday (day 90)…or else (or else what?).

**UPDATE II**  Apparently ABC was right the first time…it is 60 days.  Although there seems to be some level of “flexibility” that could allow for 90.

Obama is embarrassing

Babs would love her new neighbors

Let’s imagine that we live in a world where Mexico is regularly lobbing missiles into San Diego.  Mexico, along with much of the world, argues that California should be given to Mexico, and until that happens, all the rocket-launching is understandable.  After all, California was once part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War, and there are quite a few Mexican citizens currently residing there.  Now, if we asked our esteemed president to give Southern California back to Mexico, he would probably laugh and say “Not a chance.  They love me in Hollywood!”  Well Barry, how about just the southern portion, including San Diego?  Wouldn’t that be fair?  Again, he’d say “No.”  It’s part of America, he’d say.

In the real world, the same thing is happening…it’s just happening in the Middle East.  It involves Israel.  We are repeatedly inundated with the Palestinian “issue.”  The Palestinian people, they say, deserve their own little country, carved out of a portion of Israel.  Israel obviously says “No.”  Everyone has taken a side.  On one end, you have those like Jimmy Carter-people so infatuated with the Arab Muslims that they’d volunteer to stone an adulterous wife-who think Israel should just disappear.  Others, like Hillary Clinton, advocate for a two-state solution.  Those of us with a shred of common sense don’t quite understand why Israel should give up any land when they’re constantly bombarded with Palestinian rockets.  Fortunately, we haven’t had a president who has taken the Palestinian side since the peanut farmer; until now.

Given his public stance on things, it’s not really all that unreasonable to question Barry’s religion.  You know, whether he’s a Christian or a Muslim.  While I don’t personally care, one does have to wonder.  On the one hand, he goes out of his way to have a cross covered up before he speaks at Georgetown, while on the other hand, he’s given multiple speeches whose only purpose is to suck up to the Middle East.  Well, except for Israel.  Which brings us to our point.

B.O. gave a speech today regarding the Middle East.  Why?  Who knows…I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that an “unexpectedly” large number of Middle Eastern Muslims are upset about us killing what’s his face a couple weeks ago.  In any event, the man who likes to talk gave another speech.  In it, Barry advocated for a two state solution to Palestinian issue.  Except not just any two state solution.  One that would reduce Israel’s borders to before 1967.

Quick history lesson: between June 5 and 10, Israel successfully fought off  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967.  It began with an air strike by Egypt.  After that, Israel routed the three countries in six days, eventually taking over small portions of land from each country.  Some of that land was the West Bank, previously part of Jordan, which was occupied by lots of Palestinians.  Since that day, the Arab Muslims, along with the liberal intellectuals of the world, have been crying in their Cheerios because of the poor, poor Palestinians.  To them I say: don’t let your ego write checks that your butt can’t cash.

Israel has always been a top-notch ally of the U.S.  It’s a functioning democracy, occupying strategic ground in the middle of crazy-town.  And since drilling for our own oil would make gas cheaper potentially impact a gecko in Texas, we are forced to care about crazy-town.  Unfortunately, our law school professor turned president has found it necessary to give our top-notch ally repeated dong-punches.  And now, he wants Israel to give back all of the land it took from the countries that tried to erase it from the map.  Why?  Because he’s an Israel-hating buffoon, that’s why.  Why does he hate Israel?  I don’t know…maybe he thinks Jews talk about God too much.

Congratulations Barry.  You gave the order to shoot Osama in the head.  The rest of your foreign policy has been a complete, unmitigated disaster.  You have repeatedly dumped on an ally, in favor of a bunch of yahoos who would cut off your head if given the opportunity.

On second thought, maybe Barry’s outlook has merit.  Instead of fighting those drug cartels, why don’t we just give So. Cal. to the Mexicans?  I’m sure Barbara Streisand would love the new locals jumping the walls of her compound to sell her some hand-crafted maracas.

Good thing the Prez wasn’t under oath last night

Saving the world, or something.

Barry’s speech last night was astounding.  He outlined the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ which basically says the U.S. will use military force in any country where we think civilians might be killed, or something like that.  He criticized the Iraq War for implementing a regime change, when that is exactly what the mission is in Libya.  Finally, he blatantly lied to the American people when he stated our involvement is ratcheting down, because we’re handing the  mission over to NATO; as if NATO has its own military sitting around somewhere.

Libya is a disaster in a myriad of ways.  First, it sets a precedent that will be used for every humanitarian crisis of the month.  I can hear it now, “if we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast?  Or Bahrain?  Or Haiti?”  Second, it’s a mission that will take months to complete…although we’re not exactly sure what will constitute completion.  Obama says regime change is not what we’re about…although we’ve sided with the rebels, and regime change is most certainly what they’re about.  This isn’t a peace-keeping, or humanitarian mission; it’s a military action.  What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and we will be providing military support for the rebels.  If their goal is regime change, doesn’t that make it our goal by proxy?  Our government is even considering arming the rebels.  The rebels consist, at least in part, of members of Al Qaeda!  We’re actually contemplating arming our enemy.  Do we learn absolutely nothing from the past?

And who is NATO?  Well, it’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it was primarily created as an allegiance against the Soviet Union.  It’s members consist of us, France, England, and then some other countries with the military equivalent of catapults.  Simply removing the American flag patch from our uniforms and replacing it with a NATO patch doesn’t change the fact that it’s our troops being shot at.  Just as an example, 2200 Marines are being shipped out for a 10 month tour of duty off the Libyan coast.   And for what?  To protect armed rebels?  Armed rebels that choose to hide out within a civilian population?  Why do you think Q was sending his troops to Benghazi?  It wasn’t to check out the scenery; the rebels selected the city, with all those human shields, as their base of operation.

If this is a humanitarian mission, then why the hell is our secretary of state meeting with a rebel representative, to “determine Libya’s future?”  If this doesn’t constitute regime change, than I don’t know what does.  And of course, the reason for all of this has already come to pass for Western Europe: the rebels are going to start selling oil again. 

Infrastructure? Again? Who Came Up With That Idea?

[somewhere in White House]

Barry:  Why does everyone hate me?  Don’t they realize I’m working really hard?

Biden (eating animal crackers):  Yeah, it’s been a recovery summer baby!

Barry:  I just don’t know Joe.  The people seem to be forgetting how totally bad-ass I am. 

Biden:  Hey, B.O., watch me bite the head off of this horse.  Boo-Yah!

Barry:  I don’t know…maybe I need a vacation to clear my head. 

Biden (fiddling with jack in the box and muttering to himself): why can’t i get this box to open?

Barry:  Joe?  Hello?

Biden (looks up from the box, startled):  Wait, what?  Roads!  Everyone loves roads!  And high-speed rail!  Yeah, infrastruture baby, infrastructure!

Barry:  But we’ve done that already, and honestly, it didn’t really work.  Won’t the people get angry?

Biden:  Come on baby, no one even remembers the first stimulus.  In fact, we’ve spent so much friggin’ money, no one can even distinguish between the bailout, and the stimulus, and the budget.  Just say that we can put people to work on building roads and stuff.  And be sure to say “stimulus” a lot.  Oh, and don’t wear that bike helmet again.

Barry:  I knew it!  Michelle told me it was the type of helmet that everyone wears in Paris, and that the American people would love it.  -Sigh- 

Biden:  Nope.  You looked like a total LAME-O.

Barry:  Well you don’t need to yell.  So, do you think Congress will get on board with the building roads stuff?

Biden (sharpening his crayons):  Sure.  Just give ‘em the old “republicans drove the economy into the ditch and more roads will help fill in the ditch or somethin’” speech.  That always works.  Also, tell ‘em you’ll speak at their campaigns.  Who could say no to that?

Barry:  Big J, I think you’re right.  The people need to remember that I’m totally bad ass, and that I’m really really smart too.  I mean, I used to organize communities.

Biden (making shadow puppets):  You’re the smartest guy I know B.A., and that’s sayin’ something.  Well, I’m tired.  I think I’ll take a nap. 

Barry:  Thanks Joe.  You’re a big help.

Biden (rummaging through his vice-presidential lunch box):  Crap…who ate my fruit roll-up?!

Obama’s Tour de B.S. Rides On

Am I beating a dead horse?  Well, not entirely…because it’s not dead yet.  As long as Obama keeps spewing rhetoric that falls somewhere between baseless nonsense and outright lies, I will continue to address it.  On Saturday, during his weekly radio/internet address to the nation, B.O. offered the following,

‘Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences.’

So, what you’re saying is that not extending unemployment benefits beyond two years is obstructing progress?  What the hell constitutes progress then?  Three years of unemployment benefits?  Is he actually advocating that continued unemployment  benefits will create jobs?  Haven’t we been trying this for some time now?  Newsflash Barry: it’s not working!  Continuing to pay people to not work, with money we don’t have, coupled with a complete refusal to implement any legislation that may actually spur job growth is not progress.  It’s continuing to pour gasoline into a gas tank with a big-ass hole in it and waiting for the car to run; and when it doesn’t, advocate for the pouring of more…on credit.

Obama has made job creation his top domestic priority and has traveled repeatedly to the U.S. heartland to tout policies that lift hiring, including to Holland, Michigan, on Thursday for the groundbreaking of an electric car battery factory that has received federal dollars.

While not a direct quote from Obama, this is certainly a position he has offered before.  Assertions like this one continue to make me wonder if I’ve completely lost my mind.  How exactly has Barry made “job creation his top priority?”  Is there any basis for this contention?  What policies have been implemented that “lift hiring?”  Is it those unemployment benefits you keep talking about?

Oh, and that electric car battery factor in Michigan that is producing all of those jobs?  It’s mostly federal subsidies.  And yes, I can here it now: “but it’s job creation!  those are jobs that wouldn’t be there without the factory (and government money)!”  Well, that’s true.  But what happens when the factory stops receiving government subsidies?  If at that point the factory isn’t making the company money, it will close its doors.  See, this is the problem with “government stimulus” or “government subsidies.”  They’re temporary by their very nature.  Why?  Because the government doesn’t make any money, but always finds new stuff to spend money on.  We need sustained private sector job growth; not a one-time steroid injection.

U.S. growth has resumed after the worst recession in decades, thanks in part to a $862 billion stimulus plan Obama signed last year.

But this recovery has been slow to produce new jobs, and his Democrats risk punishment by voters in congressional elections on November 2 unless he can start to curb unemployment now running at 9.5 percent.

It’s true that slow growth has resumed.  It’s also true that the private sector is slowly adding new jobs  — not enough to equate to net job growth since not enough jobs are being created to match population growth — but at least we’re not losing them, right?  Has it resumed because of the stimulus though?  The fact is, no one knows.  What we do know is that, without the stimulus, the economy would have bottomed out simply because all the companies that couldn’t stay in business would have eventually gone out of business, and everyone else would have, at some point, slashed enough overhead to survive.  We also know that the stimulus didn’t keep unemployment maxed out at 8% like the obama administration claimed it would.  Does that make it a failure?  I would argue yes (duh), especially when no one can provide evidence that its net effect has been to create jobs.

Frustratingly for the White House, its proposals to extend unemployment insurance, cut capital gains taxes on investments and set up a fund to boost lending to small businesses have been repeatedly blocked on Capitol Hill.

This is the liberal talking point that will continue to be argued for the next three months or so.  It’s a complete sham, as we discussed here on Friday.  Simply put: if Obama actually wanted to pass a tax cut, he could.  So could the Dems.  Instead, they attach tax cuts to some other monstrosity of a bill that would completely defeat the purpose of the tax cuts contained therein.  Thus, it is filibustered.  Seems kind of like a self-fulfilling prophesy, huh?

‘They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money,’ chided Obama.

‘So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,’ he said.

The issue of Clinton’s “surplus” was also tackled here recently.  The fact is, Bush did not inherit a surplus; he inherited a projected surplus based on a forecast of perpetual roses and sunshine, which is a very different thing.  I actually enjoy Obama’s continued reliance on Clinton’s fiscal responsibility, however, because it shows he has no answers of his own.  Barry possesses no counter-arguments to the assertions that all of his domestic policies have been total disasters.  Simply put, the president is lost (which is a scary thing).  That’s precisely why he brought in Clinton and previous supporter Warren Buffet for a closed-door White House session on the economy this past week.

Yep, Barry inherited a terrible economy.  But that doesn’t excuse his complete failure to do anything about it, and then lie about why he hasn’t done anything about it.  Of course, Obama’s privately hoping that the Republicans regain control of at least the House, because it will provide him further excuses for failing to do anything constructive.  Who knows, maybe it will even allow him to move to the center and get stuff done, just like 1994 did for Clinton.  After all, that mid-term election helped create all of those “surpluses” we hear so much about.