The Truth Server

Obama on High Gas Prices: Buy a New Car

2012-02-20T07:50:00.001-08:00

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.

Obama's Contrived Contraceptives Crisis

2012-02-11T08:24:00.001-08:00

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to maybe 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis so that he -- and only he -- can swoop in and save the day, opposition be damned.

One statistic jumped out at me during Obama's "contraception mandate" speech yesterday.

"Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. "

Wow! Considering that there are rougly 150,000,000 women in the United States (2010 census), that is a lot of pills.

Well, not exactly.

Because Obama couldn't be bothered to give us any real numbers, or tell us where he got that statistic, I searched on that line and found a Center for Disease Control report, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008 (PDF). What follows is a quick, Saturday morning parsing of the numbers.

From the CDC report:

99% of "women 15–44 years of age who had had intercourse at least once (referred to in the text as ‘sexually experienced’). The percentages shown are the proportions of sexually experienced women who reported that they (or their male partners) have ever used each method of contraception at least once, at some time in their lives.

Wait, I thought Obama said 99% of all women have relied, but the CDC reports usage for sexually experienced women who have ever used contraceptives, even once. And suddenly, women have relied on equals women have once used.

But still, these must be some staggering numbers for Obama to make such a big deal about it, to make speeches about it, to force the issue on people who are opposed to contraception. Back to the report:

In 2006–2008, about 62% of these 62 million women (18 to 54) were currently using a method of contraception, including male methods

OK. So 62% of 62 million is roughly 38 million. Wow. From 150,000,000 to 38,000,000. Quite a drop.

Among the 62% of women who were using a method of contraception in 2006–2008, the leading methods currently used were:
The oral contraceptive pill, used by 17.3%, or 10.7 million women.
Female sterilization, used by 16.7%, or 10.3 million women.
Male sterilization (vasectomy), used by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7 million women.

Back out the male sterilization (is Obama fighting for that??), we are down to 21 million. What was that undocumented figure that Obama quoted on affordability?

And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

Notice he changed the demographic from ALL women to women ages 18 through 34. The numbers on age are convoluted in the CDC report, more convoluted than I want to decipher on a Saturday morning. So, let's assume roughly half are in the 18 to 34 segment of the 18 to 54 grouping in the CDC report.

Down to 11.5 million.

Half of those, Obama assures us, need help. 6 million. I won't even endeavor to ascertain what percent of that 6% works for a religious organization or is on Medicaid or other program that covers birth control.

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it.

The way he juxtaposes those two phrases, heavily emphasizing the "99%," certainly leads one to imagine some staggering numbers -- a veritable crisis.

Alas, no.

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to roughly 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis that he, and only he, can swarm in and solve, opposition be damned.

The REAL Problem with the ObamaCare "Contraception Mandate"

2012-02-10T11:41:00.000-08:00

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.

So Now Credit Card Debt is a Good Thing???

2012-02-07T21:31:00.000-08:00

So, today I learned that Americans increasing credit card debt is a good sign for the economy.

U.S. credit-card debt posted the second solid increase in a row during December, an indication Americans stuck with meager wage gains borrowed to pay for their holiday celebrations....But the Fed data are important for the clues to behavior by consumers, whose spending helps propel the economy.
The two solid gains in revolving credit during November and December came during the holidays — a sign consumers pulled out credit cards to buy gifts and make other seasonal purchases.

Isn't that wonderful. People who apparently used to pay for their holiday celebrations with cash, this year had to go further in debt for the same celebrations. But, slapping down the Visa credit card rather than the Visa debit card means that we are all doing great.

The upturn in card debt could be another sign that consumers are growing more confident about the economy, or at least about their personal job security.

Huh?

Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were told that using credit cards for expenses such as holiday celebrations was unhealthy and an indication that people's finances were getting worse, not better:

Finding themselves strapped for cash... Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards to cover gas, groceries and other living expenses....
Faced with soaring costs for food and fuel, people find they must charge more to make ends meet.
"They are not able to increase their income, but their expenses are going up, so the credit card becomes a way to cope," said Sara Gilbert, executive director of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Fort Collins, Colo.

Odd how that Wall Street Journal piece didn't mention that people needed credit cards to cope with higher food and fuel prices we have felt over the past few years.

The 2008 meltdown, we were told, was due in part to high personal credit card debt...

As the economy slows and unemployment rises, consumers are defaulting on credit-card payments more often. And though that trend is unlikely to create a crisis in line with the mortgage fallout, it's still a headache for banks that are already hurting.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/28/54880/are-credit-cards-the-next-collapse.html#storylink=cpy

...and that credit card debt was a sign of living beyond our means?

“For millions, they were living in a bubble,” says Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub, referring to Americans living on home equity and credit card debt five years ago. “If we end up overleveraging ourselves again, it’s going to be the same thing repeated in a few years.”

"Millions of ordinary people, unwilling to relinquish a bubble-era mentality of living beyond their means, will have borrowed beyond their ability to repay. If this sounds similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, that’s because it is"

Even Obama himself warned that he expect(s) consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe.

But now that Obama has saved us from the evils of the credit card companies, I guess it is in vogue to start slapping down the plastic again.

Well, if anyone wants to lecture us on living beyond our means, it might as well be Obama. He knows better than anyone how to put too much debt on the credit card.

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

2012-02-06T13:52:00.000-08:00

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

2012-02-06T12:13:00.000-08:00

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.

Is There a GOP "Enthusiam Gap"?

2012-02-06T06:39:00.000-08:00

As the Republican electorate seems to be galvanizing around a candidate, the news has suddenly been aflutter with stories of a potential enthusiasm deficit for Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney.

In the four states to vote so far in the GOP nominating race, turnout has been strongest where people were energized to vote for somebody else.
In Florida, where Romney grabbed a commanding 46 percent of the vote this week, overall turnout was down significantly from four years ago. A county-by-county look at the Florida numbers shows that turnout was up from four years ago in counties where rival Newt Gingrich did well and down in counties where Romney dominated.

Could it be that turnout, if lower, was due to nice weather or polls showing the election was already decided? Recall that just two weeks ago, South Carolina, where the polls showed a neck-and-neck race, had record turnout for the primary vote.

The Republican primary in South Carolina had record turnout, with bigger gains in voter participation than in Iowa (STTLIA) and New Hampshire earlier this month.

But, the polls leading into Florida and Nevada showed Romney with double-digit leads. Perhaps people did decide to stay home because their guy was winning, rather than a lack of enthusiasm?

Particularly in Nevada, where the Republicans’ disappointing turnout foreshadows difficulty energizing GOP voters in Nevada.

Mitt Romney’s easy victory in Nevada’s Republican presidential caucuses might, in the long run, be less important than the fact that a surprising number of Republicans who could have participated Saturday chose to stay home.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it was a beautiful 60-degree February day in Nevada Saturday? Nevada is a caucus state, where people huddle indoors for hours bickering about whom to support. Can't imagine anything more inviting on a day with 15 to 20 degree above average temperatures.

Not to be conspiratorial, but watch out for this as the latest attempt by the main stream media and lefty bloggers to support Obama at any cost, such as the hyper-activity over January's job numbers.

Now, maybe it is true that Romney is vanilla and boring and isn't inspiring the rabid following of a Newt or Ron Paul. Or, maybe people have better things to do than to waste an entire day voting for a sure-thing. I will go with the latter for now.

Obama Has His Priorities in Order: To Be Cool Again

2012-02-03T15:29:00.000-08:00

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.

I Just Can't Wait for the Government to Control Health Care

2012-02-03T09:36:00.000-08:00

When the government gets to decide what is in your insurance plan (in 2014), rest assured, and decisions will be made for you by a caring and concerned (not political!) bureaucrat.

I just can't wait for the US government to control health care, can you?

When confronted with concerns about religious employers having to provide women's health services (in English, that means contraception, abortion, and the like), the White House responded with sensitivity and grace: The decision has been made.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday tried to shut down growing opposition to the president’s decision to force religious groups to pay fines if they decline to comply with a policy regarding health insurance and contraception.

“The decision has been made,” said Carney.

Regardless of the merits of the move, it has been met with significant controversy, which apparently is meeting with indifference from the White House.

“No, there’s not a debate” about the policy inside the administration, Carney said during Thursday’s White House press conference, where several reporters repeatedly pressured him about the new directive. “The decision has been made,” said Carney.

So, starting in 2014, when the government is in the job of determining what is a "qualified" insurance plan and what is not, and you have a concern with what is in your insurance plan, rest assured, “No, there’s not a debate. The decision has been made" for you.

Obama Celebrates the January 2012 Jobs Numbers. Why?

2012-02-03T08:06:00.000-08:00

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

The news media is giddy with reports that the US economy added 243,000 jobs last month. CBS News leads the celebrations, trumpeting that we "finally(!)" have a great jobs report (emphasis added, but not much).

Finally a great report
By all accounts, the results blew away expectations.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein chimed in:

As my colleague Neil Irwin tweeted, “That sound you hear is champagne corks in the West Wing."

While that is certainly good news for those 243,000 people, it ignores many of the deeper job numbers that simply aren't improving.

The New York Times seems to be one of the few who get it:

There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate. The second possible explanation -- a jump in the number of people who aren't working, who aren't actively looking but who would, in fact, like to find a good job -- is less comforting. It also appears to be the more accurate explanation.

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate you hear on the news (which doesn't count people who ran out of unemployment checks and those who have given up looking for a new job that is just not there) is a happy bit of nonsense for Obama and politicians alike, but does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

Obama must be thrilled with these new jobs numbers, such as

367,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 28.

379,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 21.

355,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 14.

He must be overjoyed that there are fewer full-time employed this month over last:

113,050,000 (12/11) 111,879,000 (1/12)

Or, the spike in the U6 unemployment numbers:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
15.2% (12/11) 16.2% (1/12)

How about these:

*Total Number of Unemployed: 12.8 million
*Long-term unemployed (jobless for 27 weeks and over): 5.5 million representing 43 percent of the total unemployed
*Average duration of unemployment: 40.1 weeks (down from 40.9, which was the highest on record)
*Average Hourly Earnings: up $0.04 to $23.29 (over past 12 months, earnings up 1.9 percent)

No, I think Obama is celebrating the fact that the incurious people in the main stream media just regurgitate the simple numbers handed to them and can't be bothered to take the 15 minutes to find more compelling and more telling data.

The Summer of Recovery, rescheduled from 2010, is still not upon us.

Obama Attorney General Covering Up Departmental Bribery?

2012-02-01T19:48:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-31T19:35:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-25T07:51:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-24T12:20:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-23T14:20:00.001-08:00

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?

Is Rick Santorum TOO Conservative?

2012-01-06T09:24:00.001-08:00

While "social" issues may not have a large role in the 2012 election, Santorum's positions seem extreme, divisive, and down-right cruel in some cases.

Many of the right-leaning pundits are busy seeking out the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nominee to unseat Obama.

For the most part, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain each has been the Conservative darling for a time. Newt tried to convince that he is a rock-solid Conservative.

I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative. The first Wealth Entitlement Reform of your lifetime... pretty conservative. First tax cut in 16 years, largest capital gains tax cut in American history. Unemployment came down to 4.2 percent, pretty conservative.

(It) is sort laughable to suggest that somebody who campaigned with Ronald Reagan and with Jack Kemp and has had a 30-year record of conservatism is somehow not a conservative?

Did you get the subtle inference that Newt thinks he's a conservative? Too bad others don't seem to agree.

But the candidate who may truly be the most Conservative, may just be too Conservative for his own good, or for the country:

"While no political candidate, or human being for that matter, is perfect, Rick Santorum's baggage contains his clothes," CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch said Thursday after Santorum's virtual tie with Romney in the Iowa caucuses won the support of the 600,000-member online organization.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/05/3638627/conservatives-pushing-for-unity.html#storylink=cpy

Oh really? I think that Santorum's baggage is filled with his own words:

I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.

His views on same-sex marriage are certain to raise more than a few eyebrows:

"Because I believe we are made the way God made man and woman and man and woman come together to have a union to produce children which keeps civilization going and provide the best environment for children to be raised," Santorum said. "I think that is something society should value and should give privileged status over a group of people who want to have a relationship together."

His thoughts on homosexuality in general are perplexing:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.... I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions...

He is widely reported to have suggested that same-sex marriage and unions is ‘bad behavior.’ He has suggested that calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball and would seem to have no qualms about nullifying all same-sex marriages on the books.

But, of course, that's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

He seems opposed to contraception on all levels, reportedly calling contraceptives dangerous and not OK.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

His voting record will certainly come under scrutiny:

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

While I do not think that the "social" issues will hold a strong influence in the 2012 election, Santorum's positions seem extreme, divisive, and down-right cruel in some cases.

I hope that New Hampshire and the rest of the country decides to vote NO on Santorum.

UPDATED:
Well, in addition to his hoof-in-mouth predilection towards gays, Santorum is now blathering on about women, a key demographic in the upcoming election. In addition to the possibly out-of-context remarks on birth control being harmful to women, he is questioning a woman's ability to serve in the front lines in the military.

Rick Santorum raised some eyebrows by saying women should not be in combat because of the “the types of emotions involved.” Now, Santorum says, he is also concerned about “physical strength and capability” of women in combat situations.

The emotional issues involved, he belated assures, involve the men. Santorum believes that the men would be more concerned with protecting... a woman in a vulnerable position than performing the mission. The old Damsel in Distress canard.

Yeah, this fellow would be an easy, easy target for Obama to take down. Pass.

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

2012-01-05T20:18:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-22T22:45:00.000-08:00

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!!

2011-12-22T22:35:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-12-22T11:28:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-22T08:39:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-12-19T14:29:00.000-08:00

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???

2011-12-09T18:15:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-12-06T22:42:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-02T22:42:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-12-14T10:47:00.000-08:00

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.

School Lunch Ladies to Ensure Your Kids' Salad is Legal

2010-11-19T11:57:00.000-08:00

FLOTUS Michelle Obama is planning to launch a campaign to put salad bars in schools.

While this might be a worthy goal, and despite the fact that we don't have the money (Whole Foods installed 564 school salad bars with $1.4 million in private donations; you can do the math),the oddest problem that would come from this program is that your salad would have to meet USDA requirements and the "lunch ladies" in school will have to examine your kids lunch to make sure it does.

But schools also are deterred by USDA regulations that require students to pass by a cash register or "point of sale" station after they have been to the salad bar to ensure that they have served themselves the correct portions of fruits and vegetables required under the federal lunch program. ...School menu planners must tell students the minimum amounts they must take from salad bars, cashiers "must be trained to judge accurately the quantities of self-service items," and point-of-sale registers "must be stationed after the salad bar."

How bizarre must that be? Sorry, Timmy; your salad looks lovely, but you need four tomatoes and I only see three. Too much dressing; remove that extra grated cheeses. And you have only 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... five leaves of lettuce. Come on. You got the memo. You need at least eight. I don't care if you don't like romaine! Think of the USDA!

And, I have my doubts that many "elementary school children" would spend much time at the salad bar. Heck, most of them probably can't even see what they are taking.

Concerns have been raised that elementary school children in particular might be prone to spread disease at salad bars because they are too short for the standard "sneeze guard" installed on most salad bars, or because they might use their hands instead of the serving utensils provided.
Ann Cooper (director of nutrition services in Boulder, Colo. schools), who would not comment on the pending White House announcement, has dismissed those concerns, saying, "As far as I’ve found out, there are no documented disease outbreaks from school salad bars. By and large, this is not a high risk area."

OK, then, you allow your kid in line after Ralphie. I'll keep packing my kids' lunches, thank you very much.

Obama Channels Joe Biden with Asian Reporter

2010-11-12T08:03:00.000-08:00

Obama gets laughs in South Korea by asking for a Korean translator to interpret a Chinese reporter for him. Much hilarity ensued!

President Obama, at a press conference in South Korea, took the role of human gaffe-machine from Joe Biden, addressing a Chinese reporter as Korean.

In a priceless exchange, Obama specifically requested that a Korean reporter ask a question of him. After an uncomfortably long pause, where no one offered a question, a Chinese reporter raised his hand. Hilarity ensued:

OBAMA: I feel obliged to take maybe one question from the Korean press — since you guys have been such excellent hosts. Anybody? This gentleman right here — he’s got his hand up. He’s the only one who took me up on it. Go ahead. And I’ll probably need a translation, though, if you’re asking the question in Korean. In fact, I definitely will need a translation. (Laughter.)
REPORTER: Unfortunately, I hate to disappoint you, President Obama, I’m actually Chinese. (Laughter.)

This is far more entertaining in audio or video, especially the pregnant pause as Obama waited for a Korean hand to go up, and none did.

Now, not only are people not "interested in more photo-ops," they don't even want to ask this guy any questions. Where's the love, Barry?

Mystery Missle: The Result of a Computer Hack?

2010-11-11T13:41:00.000-08:00

Does it strike anyone else as odd, that less than two weeks after a US Air Force base "lost control" of one-ninth of America’s nuclear arsenal, that we have a "mystery missile" launch in California.

This is sure speculation for the fun of speculating, but it struck me as an odd coincidence that was bolstered by the US military's complete lack of explanation.

Military officials are still unclear as to what caused the "mystery missile" contrail spotted off the Southern California coast last night

Military officials have spent all day trying to determine who or what may have been responsible for what seemed like a mysterious missile launch caught on tape.

They want us now to believe it was an airplane; but anyone who has seen airplanes take off has never seen one take off like that. And, the FAA claims there were no airplane flights in the area at the time.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it did not approve any commercial launches around the Los Angeles area on Monday.

Hmm. Now we have mysterious "fireballs" appearing in the skies over the Southeast US and New England in recent days.

Report from North Quincy MA south of Logan airport of a ball of fire with a comet-like trail moving slowly from Southeast to Northwest.

South of Logan Airport? Must have been been just an airplane.

Get your tinfoil hats and climb aboard the black helicopter and let's have some fun with irresponsible rumor-mongering!

Obama's Wrong Yet Again; Not Bringing Home Troops as Promised

2010-11-09T19:59:00.000-08:00

When Obama discusses tax increases, cap-and-trade, and immigration "reform," think about how wrong he has been is on major policy proposals.

Remember, less than a year ago, after months of "contemplation," which some called stalling, President Obama assured us that he would withdraw troops from Afghanistan in July 2011?

The troop surge, he said, will "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

“After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” he said flatly.

An assertion that he echoed as recently as last May.

Well, not so fast:

The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy Newspapers. ...the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014,

What possibly could have happened in the last few months to make such a significant policy change? It seems they underestimated the gravity of the situtation on the ground.

The shift already has begun privately and came in part because U.S. officials realized that conditions in Afghanistan were unlikely to allow a speedy withdrawal.
"During our assessments, we looked at if we continue to move forward at this pace, how long before we can fully transition to the Afghans? Of course, we are not going to fully transition to the Afghans by July 2011," said one senior administration official. "Right now, we think we can start in 2011 and fully transition sometime in 2014."

That sounds eerily familiar.

Or, maybe there are other, more obvious reasons:

"In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," (retiring General James Conway), the Marine Corps' commandant, said of the July 2011 deadline. "In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.'"

Who could have seen that coming?

Whatever the reason for the sudden turn, the timetable for Afghanistan is yet another in a growing list of major policy positions that Obama simply screwed up.

Remember when he told us that the "stimulus" package would keep unemployment below 8%? Missed it by that much.
Then he promised that the health care "reform" would lower costs and not increase the deficit? Well, not exactly.
Nor, it seems, will we get to keep our doctor.
And, that Cash for Clunkers rebate was going to stimulate the economy and help the environment. Only if you think spending $3 billion to to reduce gasoline consumption by 0.2% (less than a single day's gasoline use) and "make the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer" is a good thing.
Then the realization that he can't close the Guantanamo Bay prison because there might actually be some bad guys there.

Hey, we all make mistakes. I am just asking that you keep in mind Obama's track record of accurate assessment when you hear him glorify cap-and-trade, immigration reform, tax increases not hurting the economy, and so on.

Now aren't you glad you elected someone for president with no experience, based on a bumper sticker slogan?

Obama's $900 Billion "Incalculable Risk" with Your Money

2010-11-03T20:37:00.000-07:00

Is Obama making a move that will make our salaries and savings more in line with those in China, Vietnam, Brazil, and Mexico?

On the day after the mid-term elections, the Obama administration is making a move that may well result in widespread inflation. Obama is intentionally devaluing the US dollar making the cash in your pocket, your bank account, your retirement plan, worth less.

(T)he Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June—an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period.

In short, the United States is printing money to buy its own debt. When the government prints more money, the cash you have in your pocket, your savings in the bank, and investments in your retirement account are worth less. In effect, you will have less money if this plan works.

(I)t can be seen that by printing money say by twofold this will lead to a doubling of prices.

And doubling the amount of US dollars in circulation is exactly what Obama plans to do. You do the math as to how a doubling of consumer prices will affect you.

Many outside the Fed, and some inside, see the move as a 'Hail Mary' pass by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Why are they doing this?

(T)he Fed said it was acting to "promote a stronger pace of economic recovery" and to ensure that inflation, now running at around a 1% annual rate, moves toward the Fed's informal objective of 2%.

If the plan works, it may act to reduce unemployment by "(driving) down interest rates and (encouraging) more borrowing and growth, an effect exemplified by the Phillips Curve.

However, if it doesn't work, or doesn't work well enough, we will go through a period of inflation. When that happens, the dollar becomes worth less.

The dollar is in danger of losing 20 percent of its value over the next few years if the Federal Reserve continues unconventional monetary easing, Bill Gross, the manager of the world's largest mutual fund, said on Monday.

Which means, if you have a dollar in your pocket, it will actually be worth only 80 cents. Prices rise across the board, but your salary and savings do not necessarily follow.

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation is also an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value.

As inflation increases, everything will cost more. Think about this when you go to the super market -- the prices of everything in your cart will cost you more, maybe much more, in the very near future. And it is being done intentionally.

Its been said of practically every major Obama policy, we have no idea if it will work, or how well.

Many outside the Fed, and some inside, see the move as a 'Hail Mary' pass by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

And all football fans know how poorly the Hail Mary pass succeeds.

“It’s a desperate act,” says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of the investment firm GMO. Grantham says it’s a clear message from the Fed to the rest of the world: “The U.S. doesn’t care if the dollar weakens.”

If it does work, we may go into a period of intentionally depressed salaries.

"To the extent that Chinese labor, Vietnamese labor, Brazilian labor, Mexican labor, wherever it is coming from that labor is outcompeting us and holding down our economy," Gross said. "One of the ways to get even, so to speak, or to get the balance, is to debase your currency faster than anybody else can."

Is Obama making a move that will make our labor costs more competitive with China, Vietnam, Brazil, and Mexico. Just what I want, to get paid in line with Mexican workers, don't you?

According to New Hampshire congressman Judd Gregg, one-time Secretary of Commerce appointee under Obama, talked of one consequence of continuing the Bush/Obama fiscal insanity:

"This nation is on a course where if we don’t do something about it, get federal situation, the fiscal policy [under control], we’re Greece. We’re a banana republic," said Gregg.

Now, I am no economics major, so I don't know exactly what this all means; but, it doesn't take a master chef to know that the meal in front of you doesn't smell right.

Besides, if this maneuver by Obama were such a good thing, then why did the administration wait until after the elections to announce the plan?

Massive Gov't Spending Does Not Help the Economy -- Part 1,000,006

2010-10-17T07:56:00.000-07:00

As if history were not enough to understand that massive spending by government does not help pull its country out of recession, we have some actual reporting that proves the point (odd that we didn't hear this story from January trumpeted by Katie Couric or MSNBC.

According to the Associated Press:

Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out

Yet, despite the failure of the first spending burst to do anything for the economy, Obama now tells us that we need more infrastructure spending. Massive federal spending didn't work then; it hasn't worked ever; it won't work now.

Think of it this way. Assume there are 150 million people and couples who pay income tax. What is the best way to allow the people's money to kick start the economy:

Obama's Way: You can -- as Obama and the Liberals did -- take money from each of these people (we'll disregard the fact that Obama borrowed the money for the "stimulus" from places like China) and distribute that money to a relatively small number of people who are doing things that you approve of.
The other way: On the other hand, you give real tax rate cuts that would allow all of those 150-200 million people keep more of their own money (yes, the "rich," too) allowing all of them to spend their money in every city and town in all 50 states on every sector of the economy. The extra cash in their pockets will increase their consumer confidence to spend even more instead of hording cash into a rainy day fund, as many Americans are doing. The sudden increase in economic activity will increase force business to meet the surprise demand, requiring more jobs. In turn, people with those new jobs will join into the economic explosion.

Oh sure, you Liberals argue, Obama's chosen few will spend the money on other economic sectors, who in turn will spend that money in yet other sectors, and eventually -- maybe -- all sectors will be touched. Eventually.

Of course it helps if the tax cuts are substantial enough that people should realize they actually got one.

Officials estimated (Obama's tax credits) would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks this year when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Next year, the measure could yield workers about $8 a week. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.

Liberals may cite The New Deal, President Roosevelt's massive spending and public works campaign after the Great Depression. Surely, that pulled the country out of its doldrums, right? Well, not exactly. While FDRs management of things in the 1930s help chop away at the 25% unemployment in 1933, the massive spending binge still left us with an staggering unemployment rate of 14% in 1940. The New Deal was little more than a band-aid that stopped the bleeding but did nothing to salve the wound.

For those of you who favor the Obama spend-and-tax-your-way-to-health method, consider this interesting graph from the Heritage Foundation that shows the greater effect of the Reagan tax cuts over the Obama "stimulus." Under Obama, we have seen unemployment increase since the declared end of the recession; under Reagan, unemployment dropped three percentage points in the same span.

At this stage of the Reagan recovery from the last deep recession in the early 1980s, the economy had created almost 4 million jobs, or 6 million jobs when adjusting for the size of the labor force. In contrast, under Obama the economy has lost nearly a half million jobs since the recovery began...

But, you say, didn't Reagan's tax cuts massively increase the deficit? While it is certainly true that Reagan's tax and ramped-up military spending, combined with the Democrat legislature's increased social spending increased the national debt, Obama's stimulus spent nearly 50% the debt that Reagan and Congress accrued in eight years ($800 billion vs 1.5 trillion). However, Reagan's plan actually worked.

You are the president, you make the call Which do you think will get things moving more quickly? The tax-cut method which has worked in the US in the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s; or the "stimulus" method that has never worked in any country at any time.

Democrats to Add Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

2010-09-21T09:57:00.000-07:00

It is despicable that the Liberals in this government think so little of the military that they would attach such controversial measures to a bill that supports our soldiers in a time of war.

This is an absolute disgrace, and shows again the depths that the Democrat party will sink to pass their radical agenda:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Tuesday plans to move ahead with a vote to attach a bill to grant US residency to young immigrants who complete college or join the military to the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill Tuesday.

Merits of the measure aside, to attach a bill that gives total amnesty to certain illegal aliens to a defense spending bill is outrageous. This would allow supporters to completely avoid discussing the bill, and would allow their votes to stay off the record almost entirely.

The "Dream" Act (the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act S. 729) would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought to the US as children and have a high school diploma (or GED) or have enrolled in the military.

The only reason the Liberals would consider such a move it that they know that the Dream Act will never pass on its own, and they know it:

"I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid said at a news conference (last week).

The Dems have also attached a Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal onto the same defense spending bill. While DADT is certainly tangential to defense spending, it represents a major policy shift that should be openly debated. Right or wrong, DADT is the policy of the military and any changes must be argued in an open forum, not slipped in through the side door when no one is looking.

It is despicable that the Liberals in this government think so little of the military that they would attach such controversial measures to a bill that supports our military at a time of war. Is it that they don't want their names attached to these measures or they don't want to argue their merits on their own?

More likely both.

They can tell supporters that they voted for amnesty and the DADT repeal; and tell others that they supported the military budget.

More gutless cowardice disguising itself as leadership from the Democrats.

Yet Another Terror Attack Under Obama's Watch

2010-09-20T19:17:00.000-07:00

According to the Associated Press a man arrested for allegedly placing a backpack he thought contained an explosive near the Chicago's Wrigley Field. (And I say "according to" because I haven't heard this story anywhere, have you?)

A man arrested for allegedly placing a backpack he thought contained an explosive near the Chicago's Wrigley Field also talked about poisoning Lake Michigan, bombing a landmark skyscraper and assassinating Mayor Richard Daley, according to a federal complaint filed Monday.

The man is Sami Samir Hassoun, a Lebanese citizen living in Chicago. A Lebanese man named Hassoun. I wonder what religion he could be? Hmmmm.

He wanted to, so says the FBI, transform the city of Chicago. Transform? Who else said something like that? Sorry; just having fun.

More seriously, this is, what, the 5th, 6th, 7th attack on the US under Obama's watch? But, have no fear, Hassoun worked alone. So did, we were assured, the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas day bomber, the Times Square bomber, etc.

No wonder that no one is talking about the guy who went on a shooting spree at Fort Bliss. I could be completely off base (and hope I am), but I find it odd that the shooter's identity has not been released. Hey, for all we know, the Bliss shooter could be, as NYC Mayor Bloomberg described the Times Square bomber, somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something.

Feel safer yet?

Ding Dong! The Recession's Dead

2010-09-20T18:10:00.000-07:00

The National Bureau of Economic Research (Who?) tells us today that not only is the recession over, it has been over for more than a year.

How did I miss that?

Six weeks before an election, and we are told that the recession is over. Coincidence? Must be.

There is no way that this blue-ribbon panel, populated principally by academics and other "researchers," could have ulterior political motives, right?

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee is seven gurus neither elected by the public nor appointed by anyone who was. It uses no set method to come up with answers. The result is that the timing of recessions is inconsistent between their beginnings and ends, inconsistent among different US recessions, and inconsistent with recessions in other countries. The NBER's "method" is not transparent and lends itself to accusations of political bias.

Not to mention that Obama's former director of Council of Economic Advisors (and former NEBR member) Christina Romer is married to current NEBR member David Romer.

Don't let the staggering unemployment rate fool you; don't let the abysmal consumer confidence numbers fool you. Nor the dropping personal income or GDP. The recession is over.

Obama was hot on the campaign trail again, touting his "accomplishments" as president, and assuring us -- yet again -- that Hope will conquer all.

Hope will beat fear every day...

No, Barack; "hope" will not conquer fear; good planning and solid results will conquer fear. Two things that you cannot put on your resume. Ever.

Hope is what you turn to when you have nothing else left.

No wonder, Mr. President, even your most ardent supporters are jumping ship:

"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now," she said.

Thank you, ma'am. I couldn't agree more.

City to Ban Sales of Sugary Beverages -- World is Saved!

2010-09-20T14:41:00.000-07:00

In a bold and daring move, the leaders in the City of Boston are risking all to solve one of the most vexing problems facing the city -- and all of America!

A panel of leading experts in health, education, and housing will combine their brain power to put a stop to a problem devastating the city. Bill Walczak, head of a "community health center," could barely contain his passion and rage at this crisis!

“Somebody has to take a stand, and if it isn’t the government and health care institutions leading the way to a healthier lifestyle, who’s going to do it?’’

They cured AIDS?
The can stop cancer in its tracks?
They can prevent Autism?

No! Bigger than that, even!

Concerned about the girth of employees and visitors to government agencies, Boston officials are weighing — gingerly — whether to restrict or even prohibit the sale of calorie-laden refreshments on city-owned property.

That's right kids; no more sody-pop at city hall.

Huh?

While obesity is certainly a health issue, these geniuses want us to believe that banning soda from the vending machines, coffee shops and -- yes -- at the deli will do a damn thing to reverse the curse of obesity. So, the next time some solon orders a jumbo roast beef with cheese and extra mayo City Hall Deli, he won't be able to drink an unhealthy can of ginger ale.

And, get this, our firefighters -- heroes who risk their lives every time they leave the station to come to our aid -- wouldn't have been able to have a Pepsi when they returned from battling "one of the biggest fires in recent Boston history," were this policy in place in August. At least now, they would be safe from one of the biggest hazard of a jake's life: Mountain Dew.

“We see this as the beginning of the food revolution,’’ Walczak said.

Yeah, city hall is exactly whom I turn to when I want to start a revolution.

To quote the ever-glib Mayor of Boston, we need to "tinue to make a procedure difference in people's lives."

Why do we trust these people to do anything?

Health Insurance Rates to Increase Due to ObamaCare

2010-09-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

Spending more more than $1 trillion dollars on "reform" will not reduce your costs, will not cut the deficit, will result in rationing, may result in losing your current plan and doctor, and will not cover all Americans.

Health insurance rates to increase due to ObamaCare, reports the Wall Street Journal, Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul.

Thanks Barack! You and your Liberal cronies forced through your health insurance "reforms" (despite massive public disapproval) promising lower insurance rates and federal deficit reduction.

Well, only a few months into the plan, and it turns out that you were wrong and we were right.

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections...

Shockingly, with added requirements including letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps, insurance companies are facing higher costs and passing those costs to the consumers.

...carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators....some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%."

"Anytime you add a benefit, there are increased costs," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobbying group.

Who could have predicted that? Well, pretty much everyone who was being honest during the health care "reform" debates.

As for that claim that adding 30 million people to the Medicare roles will actually reduce costs and not expand them? Sorry again, but no.

The CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings.

So, dropping more more than $1 trillion dollars to "reform" health care will not reduce your costs, will not cut the deficit, will result in rationing, may result in losing your current plan and doctor, and will not cover all Americans.

What exactly are we getting for OUR money?

Why Rembering 9/11 is More than Recalling the Event

2010-09-11T08:18:00.001-07:00

On past 9/11 anniversaries, I have been chided, particularly by my Liberal friends, for my affection towards Darryl Worley's September 11 tribute, Have You Forgotten.

No one, they chuckle, has forgotten 9/11.

Recalling the event itself is not enough. We need to remember and embrace the emotional toll that the attacks had on us as individuals and as a nation. We need to remember, as Mr. Worley sings, how it felt that day.

We must never forget the range of emotions that welled in so many of us that morning: the confusion, the horror, the sorrow, the fear, the anger that flowed through us all as we watched the events on TV or in person, or later in a recording.

We need to remember the sense of purpose that drew us all together as a nation. Just a few months after one of the most contentious elections in the nations' history, we were able to put our political divisions aside as President Bush stood atop the rubble, bullhorn in hand, in a calling-to-arms that this nation has not heard for generations.

We need to remember who did this to us and why. In this politically correct world of walking on the safest, thinnest rhetorical line as possible, in an era when our leaders routinely change the terminology of the day, not in an attempt to change history, rather to divert blame and tamper our anger, we cannot forget that this attack, and too many others, were done in a perverted interpretation of Islam. It is they, not the faith itself, who has declared us the enemy.

And we need to remember that this enemy of ours will never stop; they measure victory in years, decades, perhaps centuries. As long as we remain vigilant, their attacks will be small and their victories few.

But, most of all, we must remember the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives that day. The people in the planes, the people in the towers. People no different than you and I, who were going about their day as any other. Going to work, going on vacation. Innocence lost to evil. In all those offices, there must have been someone in his last days at work before retirement; there must have been people there for their first week of work; there may have been delivery people who were there only out of fate; there may have been people there to interview for a job, who had never set foot in one of those buildings before. On those planes, there were people who traveled for work, people going on vacation, perhaps the first in years. Individuals, families. The flight crews who came to work that day as any other, perhaps with plans for later in the day when their flight inevitably touched down.

We must always honor those who gave their lives in a vain attempt to save others. The first responders: the police, fire fighters, people on the street who sacrificed to give aid, those who "went down like heros in that Pennsylvania field" to stop another target from being hit.
We must remember those who sat at home, talking to a loved one on the phone just before dying, the people who watched loved ones trapped in a collapsing tower, those who never heard from their loved ones again. Those who lost a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a child (young or old), a friend.

They, too, are victims. People also like us who kissed their loved one goodbye with a promise to see him or her later in the day. The dinner plans that never came to be; the first date that never happened; the theater tickets never used; the lives that will never be the same.

These were people just like us, who did nothing wrong, but paid the ultimate price to those who did, for no other reason than hatred and true evil.

That is what we must never forget; I for one, never will.

Obama's "Race to the Top" is a Race Towards Losing Control of Education

2010-09-06T20:44:00.000-07:00

As politicians and news organizations celebrate new federal education grants delivered by President Obama's "Race to the Top" program, it is easy to overlook what these grants really mean.

By joining the Race to the Top program, the states are ceding their ability to establish the standards, curriculum, and evaluation methods used for its students to a nameless, faceless collection of "teachers, school administrators, and experts" polled by an anonymous organization called Common Core State Standards Initiative."

According to the Common Core website, the organization will "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them."

Which means, the states are giving away the ability to continue to establish the high standards required of students, and the teachers and parents in Swampscott will lose the ability to set the curriculum and evaluation methods to meet that criteria.

This program ensures that states and communities cede their ability to establish the type of education they feel is appropriate for their students. Instead, local educators will be required to adhere to a "common understanding of what students are expected to learn... regardless of where they live." Note that many of these standards have yet to be established.

Instead of working to improve education, any state that signs onto Race to the Top has abdicated its responsibility towards its students and parents by preventing us from engaging in how the students are educated. As parents, we will no longer be able to control our children's education, instead leaving the job to a mysterious group of "national organizations representing, but not limited to, teachers, post-secondary educators (including community colleges), civil rights groups, English language learners, and students with disabilities."

Perhaps students could benefit from a set of "effective models from states across the country and countries around the world," by joining Race to the Top, our educators will not be allowed to determine which models are best for our children, forcing our kids to follow models created by people whose credentials -- and identity -- we do not know.

Robert Holland, a senior fellow for education policy with the "conservative think-tank" Heartland Institute, suggests:

the “readiness standards for English largely are a set of 'content-free generic skills.' The standards favor the reading of workplace manuals much more than classic works of literature. The math content may be 'even worse.'

The CCSSI standards, he challenges, 'require only a smattering of math beyond Algebra I. Students in schools adhering to these standards could find themselves ineligible for admission to any half-decent college or university.'

In the end, ask yourself this: If common, national standards would be so beneficial to students across the US, why have more than half of the states refused to sign up for the program? And why has Obama required states to join the compact in order to receive Title I funding?

In an editorial in the Washington Post, Daniel Willingham, a professor at the University of Virginia, described the problem behind the Race to the Top initiative:

The likely failure of the 'Race to the Top' initiative doesn’t depend on whether or not these ideas are any good. Here’s the problem. States are not really committed to the reforms the administration envisions. If they were, they would have implemented them, or at least they would have been making a game attempt to do so.

In other words, if the ideals behind Race to the Top are so sound, states would not need to be extorted to embrace them.

Even the left-leaning Atlantic Monthly sees the extortive nature of this program:

(D)angling money in front of fund-starved school districts is a great way to make them enact changes the federal government would like to see...

The Obama administration is working hard to centralize as many aspects of American life in the federal government. The education of our children should not be one of those things. The states, communities, and parents need to be in charge of what our children learn and how they learn it. Not some anonymous think tank.

Obama: Open-Ended War Serves No One (except maybe our enemies!)

2010-09-01T20:26:00.000-07:00

Loved this line from Obama's speech last night on "ending" the war in Iraq:

"...open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."
Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief, I have news for you: All wars are open-ended! No one starts or responds to war with a time-table. "Hey, Adolph, we'll defend ourselves, all right; but we really need to wrap this up by October."

When one side announces when they will stop fighting by a certain date, the other side can just sit back and wait.

I wish I were as smart as President Obama.

Cash For Clunkers: A Perfect Symbol of the Obama Presidency

2010-08-31T21:18:00.000-07:00

The Boston Globe's token conservative, Jeff Jacoby delivers a lovely indictment of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" debacle in a column today.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph -- the president pronounced it "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take "free" money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

Jacoby points out the obvious flaw in the program, predicted by so many outside of the administration, that removing thousands of perfectly good cars from the road would only serve to increase the price of used cars:

the supply of used cars is far lower than it would be if your Uncle Sam hadn't decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System -- or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers.

Oh, but it helped the environment, right, to get all these so-called clunkers off the road? Well, not so much:

Using Department of Transportation figures, meanwhile, the Associated Press calculated that replacing low-mpg "clunkers" with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO₂ emissions by around 700,000 tons a year -- less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4½ hours.

Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program (under best-case assumptions) cost at least $237 per ton. That is more than 10 times the going rate on the international market, where carbon emissions credits currently cost about $20 per ton.

So, the program did nothing to help the environment; is now hurting the poor and middle class who buy used cars; did not cause a marked increase in car sales; yet cost you, the tax payer, some $3 Billion.

In the end, Jacoby says it best:

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

A perfect symbol of the Obama presidency.

Obama: Will He Say We "Won" the Iraq War or "I" Ended It?

2010-08-31T11:27:00.000-07:00

When President Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office tonight, he will be declaring a "formal" end to a war he stridently opposed and called a "foreign policy disaster" as a Senator and presidential candidate.

Driving home his point, the president said, "The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course. And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home."

Interesting words from someone who vehemently opposed the troop surge that apparently has allowed Iraq to become a "sovereign, independent nation." Vice President Biden also opposed the surge and introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the surge.

Not to belabor this point; but, as a wordsmith, I am curious to see how he addresses the Iraq war and his role in the war. It seems, as he has in the past, he will take credit for all the good:

"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing," Obama said.

And he will take credit for what President Bush negotiated:

"In the months ahead, our troops will continue to support and train Iraqi forces, partner with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions and protect our civilian and military efforts," Obama said, a day before ending his 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation...

And he will certainly not remind us that he introduced legislation to bring the troops home from Iraq in March 2008. (Even before he became president, he seemed to have a disdain for the US Constitution).

But, will he say that the United States was victorious in Iraq, or just that combat missions are over. Will Obama say we "won" the war; or, simply that it is over?

What about the families of the service men and women who died in Iraq. What does Obama say to them? You lost your loved ones in the war, but their sacrifice helped us end the war sooner? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan; will the Commander-in-Chief settling for "ending" the war be much of an inspiration to them?

For those of us with a love of language, it should be an interesting speech.

Huffington Post: "Don't Tread on Me" is a "Rediculous" Saying

2010-08-30T19:13:00.000-07:00

The illustrious liberal blog shows its true colors in calling one of the more enduring symbols of the American Revolution "ridiculous."

In a bizarre photo essay, the Huffingtonians listed the 20 "most ridiculous messages" displayed at the Restoring Honor Rally, organized by -- Egad! -- Glenn Beck.

Among the "ridiculous" messages:

A quote from George Washington
A man saluting
Two men with a flag emblazoned with September 11, 2001
T-shirt stating "Restoring Honor" (the theme of the event)
Two people wearing matching flag shirts

And, of course, the ridiculous message, a message carried by some of the first Marines in US history: Don't Tread On Me.

What more do you need to know about the Huffington Post -- and Liberals in general -- than the fact that they consider flags (that) were widely used during the American Revolution "ridiculous."

While I have great respect for people who have strong political beliefs and are proud to stand for those beliefs, doesn't it make you Liberals even the least bit queasy to see the mainstream voice of the Left so terrified of an opposing movement that they will insult the people of a specific movement and blatantly lie about the number of people at a rally?

Liberals, be very, very afraid. I know you already are.

Obama Too Busy "Buying Shrimp" to Answer Iraq War Question

2010-08-26T21:11:00.001-07:00

While on his eighth vacation in a scant 20 months, President Obama seems to have channeled Forest Gump in refusing to answer a question from the crowd about the troop withdrawal from Iraq.

(M)embers of the press yelled out several questions for the president, including one about the war in Iraq. The president's response ? "We're buying shrimp, guys," the president said, smiling. "Come on."

While Obama didn't allow his shrimping excursion to interfere with receiving the adulation of the sparse crowd, he couldn't be bothered with a question about American troops in a war zone.

Perhaps if he did respond, the next question may have been about his taking so many vacations and golf outings while our kids are dying in the Middle East.

While no one can fault a president for taking a holiday or two, refusing to even look in the general direction of someone asking about an on-going war shows that maybe Obama is the real shrimp.

But hey, after all the finely prepared lobster he has indulged in, I guess even he needed a "change."

In WTC Mosque, Obama Finds Religion in Local Control

2010-08-14T07:37:00.000-07:00

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people?

President Obama, who has shown no limit to his desires to federalize and centralize everything he can -- be it health care, automobile manufacturers, Wall Street salaries, college financing, public school education standards, -- has suddenly Seen the Light in the wisdom of local control.

On the controversial Ground Zero Mosque proposal, Obama throws his weight behind local laws and the US Constitution.

(Religious freedom) includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

If this is so, why are the "local laws" of Arizona being challenged in court by this Administration? Where did this sudden concern for local control come from? And, why does his concern for local control extend to the local people?

Once again, Obama disregards the reported desires of US citizens as reported in most polls. CNN, for one, reports that 70% of the people they polled stand firmly against the mosque. Obama, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and most others critical of the opposition to the mosque would have you believe that all these people are anti-Muslim. I find it very hard to believe that "54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents" are prejudiced towards Muslims.

These political leaders are working hard to spin the opposition as people who would deny religious freedom. But, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows, the concerns have little to do with freedom of religion or the enforcement of local laws and ordinances. The opposition is rooted in propriety.

The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer summarizes the matter well:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Where was Obama's concern for freedom of religion when he demeaned Americans as people who cling...to their religion? Would he dare criticize those who want to build this mosque as clinging to their religion?

In a blatantly pandering speech on Friday night, celebrating the start of Ramadan, Obama continued to obfuscate and confuse the issue before his Muslim audience, where -- yet again! -- he pointed out the country's past foibles:

This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches.

These words eerily echo the bizarre words of Mayor Bloomberg, who tried to compare the concerns over the mosque with religious intolerance in the 1600's and 1700's, well before the US was established.

Spin all you want. This issue is not about religious intolerance, disdain for Muslims, or anything other than propriety and the feelings of those most affected by 9/11.

Where is the tolerance for the families of those killed on 9/11? While Obama manages to mention these folks, he seems to have little interest in their concerns and opinions. Their thoughts on the controversy should carry as much -- if not more -- weight than those who want to build the mosque.

C. Lee Hanson, 77, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said he opposed the center not because he was intolerant, but because he believed that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center would be insensitive.
“The pain never goes away,” Mr. Hanson said. “When I look over there and I see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else.”

Do these sound like the words of discrimination?

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people? Concerns that may be well placed. Even if their fears are completely unfounded, shouldn't the President of the United States show some regard for those American citizens making their opinions known?

As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol points out:

But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn't feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque--because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, also said it well:

No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

It is time to introduce some common sense to this debate and stop the name-calling and spin. This is about the loss of loved ones, the loss of innocence for an entire country, and the appreciation of the concerns of the living victims. It is not about the Muslim religion. It is about doing what is right for the people of this country, and not pandering to a special interest with the goal of making us look better to the rest of the world.

As Obama himself said, Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. Ground Zero is hallowed; and it should be treated that way. Mr Obama, you need to start paying more attention to the words and worries of the local people and less worry about the local laws and ordinances.

I mean, why start the concern over local control now?

John Kerry's Problem with Taxes Shows the Problem with Taxes

2010-07-27T11:36:00.000-07:00

It's a simple matter of What Did He Own and When Did He Own It?

The Boston Herald's gossip columnists, the "Inside Track Gals," are said to have broken the story of the summer in exposing Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) tax evasion or tax avoidance after purchasing a yacht:

The Track broke the story of the summer last week when we reported that the former White House wannabe had purchased a spankin’-new 76-foot luxury yacht in New Zealand and registered it in Rhode Island, thus dodging Massachusetts’ 6.25 percent sales tax and depriving the senator’s summer home, Nantucket, of some $70,000 a year in excise taxes.

Local talk radio has been abuzz with glee -- while local boatwrights fumed -- over the story and over the senator's refusal to answer questions about the matter.

Sen. John Kerry, hounded by questions over whether he is dodging state and local taxes on his ultra-luxe $7 million sailing yacht, yesterday slammed his car door on a pack of reporters demanding to know if he would pony up to the cash-strapped commonwealth.

While I have never been a fan of John Kerry's politics, and don't like when politicians duck questioners, I see this situation as more about the state of our tax codes than which state's tax codes.

The Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state a haven... for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners.

However, according to state law, if Kerry brings the boat into Massachusetts waters in the first six months of owning it, there is a “presumption of use” and he would have to pony up some $437,500 to the state.

When asked yesterday whether he had brought the Isabel into Massachusetts, Kerry replied, “It depends on who owns it.”

Clear as the Gulf of Mexico, right? It gets better:

Maritime law expert Brian Flanagan, who teaches admiralty law at Suffolk University Law School, said it is possible Kerry may have taken possession of the custom-built craft more than six months ago, even though he registered it with the Coast Guard on March 12. Another source suggested that Kerry has not yet paid in full for his new high-seas plaything.

But even if they didn’t beat the six-month deadline, John...also could challenge the state’s “presumption of use” and present evidence that he did not purchase the vessel for use in the commonwealth, Flanagan said.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, a former Democrat running for governor as an independent, was quick to chastise his "former" party-mate in a desperate attempt to flee the Democrat party:

It looks to me like he’s avoided taxes by registering in Rhode Island. So if someone’s not paying their taxes that should be paying them, then the DOR should go after them..."

I don't begrudge Sen. Kerry his big fancy yacht. After all, he earned his money the old fashioned way, he married into it (twice!). But, don't you think the tax structure in this country is completely out of control when you can be charged sales tax in Massachusetts on a boat you bought in New Zealand and want store in a Rhode Island based on a "presumption of use" if you dare sail into Massachusetts waters within the first six months?

As Republican candidate for MA governor says: Had Enough?

Obama to Ban Internships for College Students?

2010-04-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration, in its unending quest to take over ever aspect of American life, is apparently planning to prevent companies from hiring unpaid interns to work and gain real-life experience.

The Obama administration's top law enforcement officer at the Labor Department, M. Patricia Smith, is targeting companies that give young people unpaid internships. She claims that internships are rife with abusive practices and that serious violations of labor law are widespread. Arguing that interns should get paid at least minimum wage, Ms. Smith and the White House risk destroying a valuable steppingstone that gives many young Americans training they need to get jobs they want in the future.

The Obama Administration continues to show that it does not have the faintest clue what real-life is all about, now wants to cut off one of the tools that young people have to get jobs and succeed.

But, as with all things Obama, it is all about "fairness":

The O Force worries that unpaid internships might disadvantage less-affluent students, who might not be able to afford to spend their summers at unpaid jobs. But the administration's solution risks eliminating many internships at for-profit companies so that no one gets them.

Because some people cannot afford to work for free, or don't want to make the time to work for free, no one can. That is fair, in Obama's worldview.

The Obama administration, which is full of rhetoric about improving education, actually views education extremely narrowly. In the real world, people gain a lot of practical knowledge on the job. Eliminating training opportunities will only mean worse careers and lower future earnings for those President Obama's team is claiming to protect.

Who ever accused Obama of operating in the real world?

Of course, if you want to work for Obama, you can feel free to work for free.

This summer, Organizing for America is looking for students, recent graduates, and anyone else who believes in the power of community organizing, to help lead our grassroots movement...This position is unpaid.

As someone who graduate from a college that emphasizes the value of internships, I cannot disagree more with the notion that students are somehow abused by working an internship. The Black Collegian Online seems to agree.

More and more students are finding out that applied learning such as internships and cooperative education programs (co-ops) give the necessary practical experience, and provides a contact base that is invaluable in the job search process. For employers, these programs allow them to get a jump-start on training a talented young workforce.

So, hiring documented unpaid workers is bad; but hiring paid undocumented workers is fine?

Why do I have the sense that Obama doesn't like unpaid interns because he cannot tax them?

Mass. Universal Health Care Hits Another Snag; Coming to a State Near You Soon!

2010-04-07T20:29:00.000-07:00

The universal health care system in Massachusetts hit a sinkhole in the road today.

The Massachusetts Health Connector has pulled health insurance companies from the web site where residents can buy state-subsidized insurance, because the companies won't play nice and accept the outright rejection by the state of their new policy rates.

The state has prohibited the Health Connector Authority from listing most plans because the Division of Insurance has rejected their proposed rate increases.

The authority, which is supposed to help small business owners and individuals find insurance, reported today that it has only one option available.

“With one exception, insurers must pull their Commonwealth Choice plans until they reset the rates,” the authority announced on its Web site today.

The state insurance commission rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate increases last week, a move that the insurance companies are fighting. But, until then, if you need to use the connector, you are out of luck.

Until new rates are released, the authority said it can only offer CeltiCare, which provides coverage in Greater Boston, and is not part of a lawsuit against the state.

Just wait until the ObamaCare price controls hit insurance companies nationwide. Since the Obama plan is modeled after the Massachusetts plan, the failings, problems, and price increases we are seeing here are coming your way soon.

If you think government-run health care will lead to more choice, come to Boston in the Springtime and choose from our one plan.

Ain't government-run insurance great!

Greenspan: Government Pushing the Community Reinvest Act Caused Failure

2010-04-07T12:16:00.000-07:00

As much as I hate to say I -- and countless others -- told you so, we told you so.

(Greenspan) pointed out that the Fed had warned about subprime lending and low-down-payment mortgages in 1999, and again in 2001. And he argued that if the Fed had tried to damp the housing market amid a “fairly broad consensus” about encouraging homeownership, “the Congress would have clamped down on us.”

Back in September 2008, in my epic three-part analysis of the financial meltdown, I wrote:

In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act. One of the basic principles of the CRA is that "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities." (Sec. 802.a.1)

(Lenders' mortgage) evaluation process "should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances."

To support these initiatives, the government assured lenders that, though it's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae vehicles, these loans would be bought, principle and interest, if the loans were not repaid (paragraph 8).

It was from the urging of the federal government to push mortgages onto people who could not pay them back came the sub-prime mortgage. When a mortgage requires 20% down, it became difficult or impossible for people come up with the down payment when prices exploded -- and points and fees are often tied to the size of the mortgage. Even at the low interest rates of the day, low-income buyers could not afford the payments, down payments, and fees.

Thus was born the 0 down, 0 points programs, with below-market interest rates that adjusted. Making the problem worse were the banks, who -- in a highly de-regulated environment -- "gambled" with these mortgages, knowing that the federal government would back them.

In addition to the subprime markets, financial institutions were drastically deregulated in many other areas. Most importantly, perhaps, was in the area of leverage ratios. Typically, banks are allowed to loan out $12 for every $1 in deposit. Lenders, investment banks, Fannie and Freddie, and subprime lenders started leveraging upwards of $30 to $40 per $1 in captial.

The financial meltdown of September 2008 was a problem of government. Too much government in some areas; too little government in others.

Several witnesses... (a)ll acknowledged a sharp deterioration in lending standards that kept the housing market aloft and Wall Street’s loan-packaging machines humming.

Government invented the problem that people who could not afford houses should have them; they created the solution (the CRA) for the problem they invented; and they promised to back-up any lender who would help them implement this solution, without question. Human nature took advantage of the rules the government put in place in order to make more money.

Or, as Ronald Reagan said:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Obama Admin: Taxes likely to rise eventually to tame deficit

2010-04-06T20:02:00.000-07:00

According to a top Obama economic adviser that higher energy taxes and a national sales tax (the Value Added Tax) may be on the way.

Paul Volcker, chairman of Obama's new Economic Recovery Advisory Board, told the crowd at a New York Historical Society event that:

a value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary."

Just what this country needs right now, a 25% sales tax (on top of any state and local sales taxes) and skyrocketing energy prices.

It might not be "a toxic idea," Mr. Volcker, but it will be toxic to the economy.

VAT is a huge source of revenue for European governments and also a huge cost because of the level of administration required.

Just what we need: a massive national sales tax of 10 to 25% and huge additional costs for business. Seems that the only winner here is the government; and that is just how Obama likes it.

Obama's New Nuclear Weapon Policy -- Arms are For Hugging!

2010-04-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

President Obama on Monday "revamped" America's nuclear bomb strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Now, if Iran were to launch a biological or chemical weapon attack on the US, killing millions, Obama would almost have to consult the United Nations to see if Iran were in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NNT).

Iran remains a signatory (of the NNT), but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

Even casting aside the obvious operational difficulties of casting such as conditioned role for using nuclear arms, the long-standing threat of our using them is greatly diminished, too.

President Reagan was anti-nukes, and worked to reduce their numbers; but, Reagan believed in peace through strength, that a solid nuclear presence and the believable threat to use them would keep enemies at bay.

Obama seems to be taking the opposite tack, peace through weakness. In his first year he promised to close all bases where terror suspects are kept, revealed interrogation techniques, told terrorists around the world we would not use "enhanced interrogation" techniques and anybody in the military or CIA who does will be prosecuted, giving civilian trials to terrorists, shows no interest in interrogating high-profile terror suspects, and now tells the enemies of the US that they have nothing to fear of our nuclear arsenal.

Does anyone feel safer now?

“I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

Except, of course, nuclear missiles.

The Liberal Attack on Free Speech Rights Does Not Go to the Doctor

2010-04-05T19:39:00.000-07:00

Florida doctor, Dr. Jack Cassell, a urologist, is learning first hand about the embrace of diversity that represents the Liberals in the country these days.

It seems that the good Dr. Cassell is not a fan of ObamaCare -- a direct offense in and of itself. But, Dr. Cassell went to far posting a sign that broadcast his dislike of the plan that may put him out of business:

If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere.

It seems that Cassell violated the first rule of life under Obama, do not deign to question the Dear Leader. Cassell told the Orlando Sentinel that he's not turning anyone away. He is simply making a point.

"(Turning people away) would be unethical," he said. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

But, instead of embracing freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, Liberal US Representative Alan "The Republican want people to die quickly" Greyson wants to pull Dr. Cassell's medical license.

"I'm protecting the people in my district who deserve medical care, even if they happen to have voted for Obama," Grayson said.

Why? He's racist, of course.

"What he is doing is no different from saying I will not treat a black person," amazingly stated Grayson.

Apparently, posting signs with controversial sentiments is reserved for our elected officials alone.

Fortunately, one woman in Florida seems to understand the benefits of the free market system better than her elected officials.

"If I was one of his patients, I would not walk away, I'd run," said Patsy Robertson, 73, of Winter Springs, a Democrat and retired nurse. "He does not need to be taking care of people's lives if that's his mentality."

Ms. Robertson, you have it right. Dr. Cassell has every right to declare his political opinion, and the free market has every right to tell him to shut up.

Well, that will teach Cassell to exercise his constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

Obama Intentionally Devastate the Gloucester, MA Fishing Industry

2010-04-03T07:54:00.000-07:00

President Obama, following his promises to create jobs, just dealt a devastating blow to the Gloucester, MA fishing industry, in a move that will eliminate half to three-quarters of the groundfishing fleet.

The Obama administration yesterday announced it was forging ahead with an experimental, dual track management system for the New England groundfishery that is calculated to cull out a significant number of small boat businesses while pushing hard to meet statutory stock reconstruction deadlines.

This move, during a recession, will cost countless jobs at a time when the government should be doing everything in its power (such as getting out of the way) to create jobs. Potential chief of the NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, Eric Schwaab, said he had no "timetable" or "absolute expectation" about how job loss via the new federal policies would unfold.

Even the most leftist of Lefties, Barney Frank, thinks these restrictions a questionable idea:

"The rigid and arbitrary 10-year rebuilding timeline was one of my major objections to the Magnuson-Stevens Act," Frank added in the same prepared statement, "and I believe the time has come for it to be re-evaluated."

But, once again, Obama has shown no interest in creating jobs (Gloucester unemployment 2009 11.3%) and puts the needs of fish ahead of the needs of the American people by implementing an "experimental" program.

Perhaps, Obama has ulterior motives for selecting Massachusetts for this special treatment?

U.S. Representative "Doesn't Care About the Constitution"

2010-04-02T17:22:00.000-07:00

Illinois Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) publicly admitted what many of us already know. The Liberals hate the U.S. Constitution. The Internet is ripe with audio of Obama denigrating the founding document of our country, and as president told us that he doesn't care if Congress violates the Constitution when passing health care "reform." Now there is video evidence to support the disdain of Liberals for the foundation of the United States:

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

When our elected officials do not respect the basic law of our country, the basic document that defines what America is, then it may just be all over.

At what point do you admit that the Liberals, led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, really don't care about America?

Hope and change, indeed.

Krugman: Death Panels are Real

2010-04-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

"Esteemed" New York Times columnist Paul Krugman visited This Week on ABC and told us that the much-maligned "Death Panels" are really in ObamaCare:

The (Medicare advisory panel created by the act) which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost savings.

The government -- not you or your doctor -- will decide if a treatment will work, likely based on pure budgetary reasons. And, before you shout out how you would prefer the government to make that call rather than some insurance company, realize that you can appeal decisions by insurance companies.

Under, ObamaCare, if you don't like the decision by the panel to give you the pill instead of the surgery , you are out of luck:

Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won’t have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission.

But, friends, we have been telling you this all along.

...the health-care legislation in Congress will subject doctors to a mix of financial penalties and regulations to constrain their use of the most costly clinical options. The penalties and regulations are aimed first and foremost at surgeons and the medical devices that they use, largely because that's where the bulk of spending is.

Someone owes us all an apology.

Obama Can Fool Half the People....

2010-04-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

According to a dubious poll by USA Today, 50% of those surveyed say (Obama) doesn't deserve re-election. While I certainly believe that large numbers of Americans would agree with that sentiment, I have to believe the figure is far higher than the 50% USA Today is citing?

Why?

Further down in the poll, the paper cite popularity number for Nancy Pelosi (36%) and Harry Reid (29%) that are far higher than other polls have shown.

Pelosi's favorable rating in the poll stands at 11 percent. Her unfavorable rating, meanwhile, is 37 percent -- meaning that more than one in three views the California Democrat negatively. Reid's favorable rating, meanwhile, is even lower: Eight percent.

If USA Today has Pelosi that far ahead of this poll, then the numbers for Obama, must be far worse also.

From the Man-Made Global-Warming is Neither Department

2010-04-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

Remember the horror stories about the polar bears as the Arctic ice disappears. Like the bears would drown or something with no ice floes to float on. Sorry, kids:

...it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for
this time of year.

Good news for polar bears (whose population is at record high numbers); bad news for Al Gore (of whom, thankfully, we have only one). It is a shame that the Earth won't go along with the dire predictions of all those computer models we have been intimidated with over the years.

Man-made global-warming is neither.

Obama's Oily Sleight of Hand: Yes to 130 Million Barrels of Oil; No to 10.2 Billion

2010-03-31T12:10:00.000-07:00

As Obama announces today that the Administration will open parts of the Virginia coast to oil drilling, a move that the AP called a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, he is also closing several sources in Alaska to drilling, including Bristol Bay, called Alaska's brightest hope for oil. (Note that the Virginia sites were made available after President Bush lifted the ban).

The Virginia sources will provide and estimates 130 million barrels of oil and 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, in closing Alaska to drilling, Obama effectively says No to 10.2 billion barrels of oil and 19.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This represents a swing of 900 million barrels of US, non-imported from the Middle east, oil.

Outside of ANWR's coastal plain and the National Petroleum Reserve, state geologists believe Alaska's brightest hope for major new discoveries is the Bristol Bay basin, an area in South west Alaska.

No doubt, the decision to not pursue the Alaskan fields was a sound, economic decision, not spurred by special interests:

The area is home to big sockeye salmon runs, whales and other wildlife that environmentalists feared would be imperiled if oil-and-gas development occurred.

However, argues the Alaska Business Monthly (2004): Recently, community leaders in the region have become worried that fishing will no longer be able to support the local economy. At the request of people in the region, Gov. Frank Murkowski has opened state lands in Bristol Bay to exploration.

According to Shell Oil, who researched drilling in the area, the OCS (outer continental shelf) development could generate an annual average of 35,000 jobs over the next 50 years...These jobs represent a total payroll of $72 billion (2007 dollars) over the 50-year period. Well, we have more jobs these days than we know what to do with anyway.

I find it strange that Obama would open up an area for drilling "50 miles off Virginia's shorelines" but not in the frozen Arctic wastelands of Northernmost Alaska. Could there be some ulterior motives involved?