For nearly eight years we heard the left scream, “Bush Lied!” over the decision to invade Iraq.  One decision and the same refrain repeated over and over again.  Where is the scrutiny of the truth police where President Obama is concerned?

In his State of the Union address he took the unprecedented step of calling out the Supreme Court and encouraging his minions to give that rebuke a standing ovation.  Shameful.  This is not to say that Obama cannot criticize other branches of government, but there is a time and a place.  When Joe Wilson called out “LIAR!” during a previous speech by President Obama he was roundly criticized and rightly so.  Not for the criticism, but for the time and the place.  Joe Wilson called the president to apologize.  Did Obama do the same?

The timing of the act was bad enough, but the accusation he made was not true, as Samuel Alito could be seen saying, if you can read lips.  In the midst of his constitutional duty to report to Congress on the State of the Union, he uses a blatant lie to attack his guests. But that wasn’t all.  His speech was sprinkled throughout with falsehoods, not least of which was his statement on jobs.

Counting the Uncountable

To try to put a positive spin on his porkulus bill, he had to make up a statistic that no reputable economist can endorse, “jobs saved”.  In his State of the Union speech and on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, Obama and his team talked about 2 million jobs created or saved. But they weren’t all on the same page, some said 1.8 million, but regardless it is blatant dishonesty.

Jobs created is a real statistic.  As a small business owner I can tell you that when you hire someone there are a number of government agencies that you have to report it to and you have a deadline in which to do so.  There is also some paperwork involved when you eliminate a job.  But I have never, never had to report to any agency when I thought about eliminating a job and then changed my mind.  After all wouldn’t that be the definition of a job saved?

If I never thought about eliminating the position, then the job is not “saved” it just continues to exist.  If I thought about eliminating the position and did so, it would not be a job “saved” it would be a job eliminated, no?  So it is this two step process of thinking about the action and then not following through that could reasonably be thought of as a “job saved”.  How do you measure that thought process?  Hiring someone is an observable action.  Eliminating a job is an observable action.  Saving a job are two related thought processes not externally observable, they can only be “reported” by the decision maker and it cannot be independently verified.  Is that the kind of statistic upon which you want your government to base billions of dollars in spending decision?   The only added feature of Obamanomics is that some money changes hands.  Money that comes from you, dear taxpayer, and goes to the businessman.  Can you see why such a statistic is ridiculous?

Which One Is It Mr. President?  Mr. Biden? Anyone?

Let’s pretend for a moment that “jobs saved” is a real statistic.  If the president has a figure in his head of 2 million jobs created or saved, and for the aforementioned reasons the number of jobs created is a hard number reported to some agency, then the number of jobs saved should be a matter of simple math.  2 million minus the number of jobs actually created equals the number of jobs saved.  So why not report it as such?  100,000 jobs created and 1.9 million jobs saved, for example.  Why lump them together?  Because when you lump them together its harder to tell how big of a lie the president is telling.

Stimulus recipients previously reported that they had directly “created or saved” 640,329 jobs by Sept. 30, but their filings were criticized after it emerged that some people had reported saving jobs when they had actually spent the money on pay raises or paying employees who were not in danger of being laid off.

In December, the White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance, telling recipients they should start counting every worker whose salary was funded with stimulus money, rather than guessing whether the jobs would have existed in the absence of the federal plan. Opponents of the program accused the administration of “moving the goal posts” to make the plan appear more successful. — Wall Street Journal, Latest Stimulus Report Fuels Jobs Pressure, Feb. 1 2010

So companies using stimulus money to give people raises was counted as jobs saved!  We have 10%-17% of our workforce idled and taxpayers are being fleeced to give people raises and this administration is calling that successful policy.  When do we start firing people in this administration?  How about Janet Napolitano?  How about Eric Holder?  or are we saving their jobs too so that the numbers look good?  The other reports are just as galling: $1000 purchase of a lawn mower is credited with saving jobs;  using stimulus money to purchase boots with each boot (left and right) being counted as a job saved because someone had to make the boots; stimulus money going to create jobs in Congressional districts that do not exist.  Does anyone have any confidence that this administration has a clue about how to run a government?  This is beyond embarrassing.

The Next Stimulus

But fear not, since the first stimulus was so successful, President Obama is teeing up the next one, but don’t worry this one is only $100 billion.  Doesn’t that just make you feel warm all over?

I am sure you all recall the video played ad nauseum starring the Reverend Wright railing against America defending itself.  It now seems to accurately describe the results of the new hope and change administration.  After his worldwide apology tour, and banning the term “War on Terror,” replacing it with the limp “Overseas Contingency Operation,” so that, like his presidential campaign, no one would know what he actually meant or stood for, his own chickens are coming home to roost.

Actions Have Consequences

The left used to attack the Bush administration’s approach because being tough on terrorists only served to aid them in their recruiting.  Maybe so, but I am less concerned about lines of recruits in Afghanistan than crazed terrorists in New York.  Obama’s apology tour shows his weakness and as the terrorist mindset abhors weakness, it encourages attacks.  So what would you prefer, attacks on American soil, or an uptick in recruiting on the other side of the world?

War vs. Law and Order

Bush recognized the War on Terror for what it was, a direct attack on the United States and our way of life.  In a war, you go after the enemy, you don’t wait for him to come to you.  You take prisoners and hold them, until the conflict is over.  You dismantle their ability to wage war.  It is aggressive and proactive.  It is the way America has prevailed in wartime.

The Obama approach is Law an Order.  Each act is seen as separate an isolated and as a crime to be investigated and prosecuted after the fact.  First responders are more important than the first wave of Marines.  To quote today’s Wall Street Journal:

Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.

But the Obama Administration is currently considering releasing prisoners held in Guantanamo to Yemen.  How long do you think it will be before they are back on the front lines trying to kill us?

Add to the mix the Obama administration’s, or should I say Eric Holder’s, decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court.  Holder’s testimony before Congress justifying his decision was painful to watch how he had no credible justification.  Don’t forget to give  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, his Miranda rights and get him a good lawyer. Let’s pretend his claims to be associated with al Queda is just tough talk and braggadocio.

The reality is that whenever America fought a war and politicians pulled punches (e.g., Viet Nam) we lost.

Things are Working Swell

Janet Napolitano, Obama’shead of Homeland Security had this to say, according to the New York Times

“The system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days,” Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary said, in an interview on “This Week” on ABC. Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, used nearly the same language on “Face the Nation” on CBS, saying that “in many ways, this system has worked.”

How chilling is that?  What exactly does she mean by the system worked?  She refers to the number of organizations that were alerted after the fact.  How about notifications before the fact?  How about listening to the terrorist’s own father who reported him to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria.  How about denying him a visa?  Or is Napolitano too busy adding funeral homes to her list of organizations to notify after the fact?

Where’s Obama?

If there’s a chance Chicago might get the Olympics, don’t worry, Obama’s on a plane to give it the old presidential push!  If there’s a Nobel Prize to pick up, Obama is your man!  If there is a terrorist attack on our country, hey, don’t bother me I’m on vacation in Hawaii.

Some pundits on the news pointed out that President Bush didn’t speak out against the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, for several days, so cut Obama some slack.  The problem is that no one doubted for a minute that Bush was engaged in the War on Terror, some even saying he was obsessed.  Well that obsession kept us safe for seven years.  In less than one year we have had Fort Hood and now this airline bombing.

Furthermore, why is Eric Holder making such a monumental decision regarding trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York?  Why isn’t this Obama’s decision?  Just like so much in this administration, Obama campaigns and gives speeches, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder make policy decisions on their own.

Here’s to the Heroes

The heroes in this case were a Dutch citizen and the flight attendants, who subdued the terrorist and extinguished the fire.  To quote again from the Wall Street Journal:

The lesson here is the same as Flight 93 on 9/11 and shoe-bomber Richard Reid, which is that civilians willing to act in their own self-defense are a crucial part of “homeland security.”

May I suggest that the statists drop their efforts to weaken the 2ndAmendment?  As part of  “homeland security” we may need to bear arms like at no time since the Civil War.

In Harry Reid’s Senate, this qualifies as dereliction of duty, as the Majority Leader said himself on Monday in defense of his frantic deal-making to get 60 votes. “I don’t know if there is a Senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that was important to them,” Mr. Reid said at a press conference that offered an unintentional commentary on modern democracy. “And if they don’t have something in it important to them, then it doesn’t speak well of them.” – Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2009

It kinda makes you feel warm all over, that our Congressional leaders are representing their constituents, selflessly doing what’s best for America in line with the consent of the governed (55% opposed according to latest Rasmussen poll). 

 Have you seen some of the commercials for Ally bank, where a man asks one little girl if she wants a pony and she gleefully says yes, so he hands her a toy pony.  He then asks the next girl if she wants a pony and she says yes, so he calls out a live pony.  The first girl, crestfallen, says, “You didn’t say I could have real pony.” To which he replies, “Well, you didn’t ask.”  By now you probably know how Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Byah of Indiana feel.  They didn’t ask for a bribe in return for their vote on the health care bill, and like the creep in the commercial Harry Reid tells the world what a couple of saps they are for not doing so.

While Obama’s first stimulus plan lies sputtering on the ground, and he and his team tee up another one, they fail to realize that many small businesses that create most of the new jobs in this country, simply do not know what all this (health care, cap and trade, stimulus after stimulus) is going to cost them.  Until they do, this uncertainty is what is keeping many of them from doing any hiring.  How can you hire a new person when you no longer know how much your existing staff is going to cost when the music stops?  So the unemployment picture will drag on no matter how may stimulus plans Obama rams through.

Coming to Their Senses

This is not over yet. The House version and the Senate version still have to be reconciled in committee.   In the House Bart Stupak says he has 30 Democrats ready to vote against the bill, if his amendment against abortion is tampered with.  The chumps in the Senate that Harry just made fools of, may re-think their support. The far left demands a public option be put in.  Lieberman and a few others vow to vote against any public option. In addition, the members of Congress, when they return home to their districts, may not find them full of good cheer this Christmas, as incensed constituents express their opinions on why every Democrat in the Senate doesn’t understand 55% opposition, while they vote yea.  Better watch out for flying fruitcakes, they can be lethal.

It now appears that both sides in the Honduran standoff are waiting on the United States to weigh in.  Despite those on the left (Chavez, Castro) continuing to push for less involvement by the U.S.  in Central and South America so they can step into the void, they are now calling on the United States to take a stand, on their respective sides, of course.  Chavez had this to say:

“Do something,” Mr. Chávez had said to reporters. “Obama, do something.” – NY Times, July 12, 2009

Hillary Clinton has joined with Castro and Chavez in calling for the return to power of Manuel Zalaya.  But as Mary Anastasia O’Grady reports in today’s Wall Street Journal:

“If there is anything debatable about the crisis it is the question of whether the government can defend the expulsion of the president. In fact it had good reasons for that move and they are worth Mrs. Clinton’s attention if she is interested in defending democracy.”

There’s the rub, if she’s interested.  It seems that the Obama administration has an aversion to democracy, once they get in office.  When polls in the U.S. show that 68% of the people believe a second stimulus is coming while 60% oppose a second stimulus, that tells you something about their feelings about democracy.  Their silence on Iran and their speaking out on Zalaya’s behalf, reinforces that belief.   The Obama administration’s goal is to get power, and do whatever they can as quickly as they can to consolidate it.  It seems like a page out of any tin pot dictator’s playbook.  Chavez could have written it himself.

Now the Obama administration has gone silent on the situation in Honduras.  Will they find their voice?  Will it be the voice of our Founding Fathers, or Che, Hugo, and Fidel?

Democrats Lining Up to Vote for Cap and Trade

The tide is turning against the case for man-made global warming.  An article in today’s Wall Street Journal has the following:

“Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.” — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

So if the case for controlling CO2 emissions is gaining skeptics, what would a reasonable person do?  They would probably pause and listen to see if they should alter their position based on this new information.  What do the statists do?  Double their efforts to jam this gargantuan tax bill through Congress, again without reading it because it’s too big, before the American people find out just how monumentally stupid it is.

Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey are the lead lemmings jumping into the sea and expecting all of us to follow.  You see, if they can slam this thing in they will have enormously increased their power and make it very difficult to unwind this monstrosity.  Their disdain for what is right for this country and what is best for the American people is truly astounding.  Their arrogance and sense of empowerment knows no limits.

Scientists Speak Out

Far from Al Gore’s pejorative and dismissive label of “deniers”, some real scientists weigh in:

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”  — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

Can you feel your liberties slipping away as those in power do what they want rather than representing us.  Sounds like it’s about time for a tea party.

Obama's Sales Pitch for the Stimulus Bill

The latest unemployment numbers are in and you can forgive the fervent Obama supporters for having buyer’s remorse. The main stream media, that he holds in the palm of his hand, is playing down the darkening employment picture, focusing instead on the silver lining that it’s getting worse at a slower rate.  The jobless rate hit the highest level it has been since February 1983, hitting 9.4%.  The good news is that we only lost 345,000 jobs last month.  Here is how the spin-master puts lipstick on this pig, or should I say, pork?

“In these last few months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs,” Obama said, touting spending on alternative energy, keeping teachers and police officers in work and small businesses. — Las Vegas, May 27, 2009

There is one small problem with this statement as pointed out by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on “jobs saved.” So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its “clairvoyant ability to estimate,” and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama’s ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

So if the Labor Department, the keeper of the unemployment statistics, cannot collect data on jobs saved, where does President Obama get his figure that he saved 150,000 jobs?  We can only assume it is an outright fabrication, unless he can tell us otherwise.  Will we start hearing a chant “Obama lied, our future died”? Not likely from the obsequious press.

Buyer’s Remorse

In pressing for his pork filled stimulus package, Obama insisted that it was necessary, it was needed immediately, if not sooner, and if we didn’t do it, it would turn crisis into catastrophe.  I direct your attention to the graph above.  This graph was included in the stimulus package to point out that in the absence of the stimulus package the unemployment rate would rise to 9% by the middle of 2010.  However, get behind the stimulus plan and voila, the unemployment will top out at a mere 8% in the third quarter of 2009 and you get all of this for a mere $787 billion.

As conservatives pointed out at the time this made no sense, since the bulk of the stimulus spending, chock full of pork, would not be spent until 2011 and beyond.  As of today, less than 10% of the money has been spent, and the unemployment rate has past both the peak Obama sold to the American people, as well as what he predicted would happen without the stimulus.

Of course the statists will roll out their tired old argument that it wasn’t enough.  With every government program that fails they always tell us we didn’t spend enough…if we only spent enough…

Look back to February 1983, the last time the unemployment rate was this high, and what we see is Ronald Reagan in charge.  His solution was to cut taxes, cut spending, and reduce the size of government.  Today, President Obama’s plan is just the opposite.  It is to raise taxes on the most productive among us, spend our money like it has never been spent before, grow government without bound, and lay the burden of paying for it on generations to come.  We do know this, Reagan’s plan worked, ushering in the longest peacetime expansion in history.  Are we to believe that doing the exact opposite will also work, or work even better?

The slowing of the job losses and the advance of the stock market foretell that our economy is starting to turn of its own accord, as little of the stimulus has taken effect.  Conservatives said to get out of the way, reduce the tax burden and the economy will recover on its own.  The statists said no, now is the time to advance our agenda and our power grab.  Take advantage of the crisis.

Interest rates are starting to climb as massive government borrowing crowds out private borrowing.  The flooding of dollars into the economy is starting trigger inflation as can be seen in the increase in oil prices.  With Reagan, the best was yet to come, since Obama has chosen the exact opposite path, we can only fear for the future, when his programs take full effect.  As can be seen by the chart above, their plan is already way off course and with the massive inexperience of Obama and his team, how much confidence do you have that they can find their way back?

[the Warren Court] “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” — Barack Obama interviewed on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM September 6, 2001

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama may be standing before Chief Justice John Roberts, place his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States and pledge to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”  Can he take such an oath with a clear conscience?

Obama’s View of the Constitution

Steven G. Calabresi writes in the October 28th, 2008 Wall Street Journal, describing how Obama’s philosophy is that justice should not be viewed by our courts in a legal sense, but rather in a social sense.  Social justice means just what he said to Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth around is a good thing.  Not only is it a good thing, but it should be guaranteed by the constitution.

What this means is that he believes that if an individual goes to court and has a hard luck story to tell, the judge should rule in that individual’s favor, regardless of the legal merits of the case. As Mr. Calabresi writes, “Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.”

The Threat to Liberty

How does this impact our individual liberty?  Well, liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.  So if a homeless person, breaks into your house and eats your food, he should not go to jail or be punished.  Perhaps if he vandalizes your house, he may be punished, because that wasn’t necessary.  However, if you were his former boss and you laid him off or fired him, then maybe the vandalism is okay.  If you have food and can afford to buy more, then the homeless have a right, constitutionally protected, to take yours.  Now you may well say, that will never happen!  Maybe so, but then you will see the next best thing, the government will take the equivalent of your food in the form of your wealth and give it to the homeless person.  And just what is the difference between a criminal with a gun, and the government with the power to throw you in prison when the goal of both is to take your wealth.

What Did the Founders Think?

The reasons the founders incorporated what Obama calls “essential constraints” into the Constitution was their deep seated distrust of a powerful government.  They knew the power of a government that paid little heed to their liberty.  They threw off that government with the Declaration of Independence.  They were fearful of putting a similar one in its place.  They felt that individuals should be free to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that government is necessary, but should be minimal.

Listen for yourself:

Obama Redistribution of Wealth