No Record to Run on, Just Fear and Loathing among Different Groups

Dreamstime.com

Barack Obama’s so-called "Forward" re-election strategy is the most un-presidential in memory as his policies are the most offensive and anti-constitutional.

The man who seemed to have all the answers in 2008, and convinced enough people that he was going to be the post-racial and post-partisan president, has turned out to be the “most-racial and most-partisan” president (as Rush Limbaugh described him), and he is doubling down on his class warfare themes that the evil rich should be paying a substantially larger share of income taxes, and the not-rich should have perpetual government-paid benefits from cradle to grave, starting with Head Start (which doesn’t work), and ending with Medicare (which he is going to be raiding further for the benefit of Obamacare).

Never mind that there is no mention of cutting anything except defense, with cuts which would gut our defense readiness and leave us more vulnerable in terms of national security. Any dollars cut from defense (or anything else) will never be used to reduce the deficit, but only to increase spending on liberals’ beloved, bloated social programs.

The president’s ideal of American life is pictured in the Obama campaign’s presentation “The Life of Julia” which pictures a woman relying on government help from age 3 onward, as though she could barely function if (shudder!) the awful Romney actually reduced spending on such stuff. She evidently must receive government-(i.e., taxpayer)-paid contraception, education grants, student loans, and healthcare lest she perish for lack of government funding. Obama nowhere hints of self-reliance or independence from the public trough. His ridiculous “War on Women” and “Buffett Rule” propaganda illustrate the class-warfare-based pandering to groups he hopes will support him as they did in 2008.

His support for re-election must come from hardened socialists, radical feminists and environmentalists, and other leftist fringe interests, and people who are not paying attention to economic realities, but like his “sincerity” and think his promises are somehow trustworthy.

President Barack Obama has no record that he can run on. He has empty promises, fear and resentment among various groups, the pathetic pleading of ignorance of the actual economic situation that existed when he took office, and blaming of George W. Bush, bad weather, an uncooperative Congress, etc., etc., for the continued bad economic and business environment characterized by continued massive unemployment and “growth” so slow it still doesn’t look like a recovery. But not to worry, increased government spending, more entitlements, more job-destroying EPA and Dodd-Frank-type regulations are his answer, along with more golf outings and vacations for the First Family.

Unemployment figures for April 2012 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics include the following: 8.1 per cent official unemployment rate; 115,000 jobs added in April; teenage unemployment rate 24.9 per cent; Number of unemployed persons at 12.5 million; number of people “marginally attached to the labor force” (not counted as unemployed) at 2.4 million (these had looked for work sometime in the last 12 months, but not during the 4 weeks preceding the survey, and their number includes 968,000 “discouraged workers” who had given up looking for work; persons unemployed for 27 weeks or longer at 5.1 million; persons working part time because their hours had been cut or because they couldn’t find full-time work at 7.9 million.

These numbers indicate a great deal of economic difficulty and misery for many American families. The Administration seems to have very little with which to improve this situation, and one must suspect that in the socialist/Marxist world, government dependency is a good thing, and people in economic distress tend to look to government for the help they need. In this case, they would be looking to a government that is more interested in restructuring American society to their socialist/Marxist model than in correcting the economy, which would actually recover quite well if left alone by government.

Mitt Romney is made out to be a villain because he’s (1) “rich,” (2) “out of touch,” and (3) planning to cut spending on some of Obama’s dear socialist programs, (4) and maybe even restore the defense budget so that it won’t be so deeply into the danger zone.

Romney is, politically, our only hope at present for any kind of “return to normalcy,” which we very urgently need. Four more years of Obama? More coddling of “Occupy,” more forced unionism, more illegal immigration, less freedom, and lots more spending until our debt has to be dealt with via cheap, cheap dollars, and savings and investment are all but wiped out, along with our currency. That could make Greece’s present situation look positively desirable by comparison. We won’t get another Reagan, but we can hope for a pretty good non-Obama. If Romney is half as good a president as Calvin Coolidge, we will be immensely better off than if Mr. Obama is re-elected.

With the recent hubbub about Obama’s dog-eating, and Obama’s desperate attempt to be all things to all people of the leftist extreme, I can’t help but be reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s proverb and its potential political applications: “He that lies down with Dogs, shall rise up with fleas.” (Poor Richard, 1733)

Related articles

• Obama's Only Prayer: Forward (whitehouse12.com)
• Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.1% Is Anyone Buying It? (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• Meanwhile, Here's The Chart That Will Get Obama Fired... (businessinsider.com)

Obama Unbound (Part 2)

Pool photo (via USA Today)

“… a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”  – Thomas Jefferson

 There are many good reasons to vote against Barack Obama in November. As far as I can see, the main reasons to vote for him are to try to assure that entitlements will be added and not reduced, and that if you’re currently not paying any income taxes, you still won’t, although everyone else will pay substantially more. That evil upper 50 per cent, ya know.

Obamacare, if it is permitted to stand, will lead to massive tax hikes during an Obama second term (if any). If Obama is reelected, he will have no concern about accountability to the people, since he will not face another election (assuming we still have elections by 2016). He has demonstrated this by his refusal to be accountable to any great extent now.

Obama thinks we need just one branch of government, namely, himself. He will not feel much need to get Congress to do much, since he thinks he can rule by decree. So far, no one is stopping him. Who knows if he would abide by a Supreme Court decision to strike down Obamacare even though Attorney General Eric Holder assures us he would.

The president who debuted basketballs decorated with his own image at the White House Easter event, would likely have giant portraits of himself placed in conspicuous places, a la Saddam Hussein; maybe statues, too. Maybe he should get work started for a future Obama Memorial in Washington. To make room, he could tear down the Jefferson Memorial.

There is no lack of signs that something is definitely amiss about Obama’s thinking, in terms of American tradition. He maintains that capitalism has never worked and is the main cause of our economic problems, when in fact it is capitalism that has brought about our historic prosperity, not because of, but in spite of government interference. He believes it would be judicial activism for the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds (“unprecedented”), when it is rather frequent that the Court strikes down federal laws on the basis of the Constitution. Remember how he whined and even chastised the Supreme Court, over the Citizens United decision, in his State of the Union speech, with justices sitting right there, unable to respond.

He submits a so-called budget that is defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 415-0. Does anyone see anything strange about that? Not even one member of his own party voted for it. They knew it was a joke, and if they had voted for it, the joke would have been on them. But Obama don’t need no stinkin’ Congress or Supreme Court, just his own little circle and several czars.

He occasionally hints at fiscal responsibility, but never fails to keep our deficits and debt growing at astronomical, potentially catastrophic, rates, and never fails to call for higher taxes. He criticizes the Ryan budget plan while offering exactly nothing of his own to deal at all with the growing deficits. He still pushes Obamacare when it has been conclusively shown that it will greatly expand the federal debt. He pushes for more EPA regulations, effectively shutting down coal plants.

If the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports some added jobs and a slight decrease in the unemployment rate, he neglects to mention that the rate drop is due to more people giving up trying to find a job, and therefore not being counted as unemployed. This deception seems to work with some people, although it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

Obama supports the Attorney General in spite of Operation Fast and Furious, the infamous gun-running scandal that ought to result in Eric Holder’s firing. It was an attempt to create an excuse for more gun control (part of Holder’s “brainwashing” scheme?) and it has contributed to the deaths of at least one American agent and many Mexicans.  This alone is grounds for impeachment of both Obama and Holder.

My main point is this: Given the things Obama has done in his first term, what should we expect from a second Obama term? The answer is: The hole we’re in will be dug deeper and deeper, more people will become more dependent upon government, and much less able to earn, spend, save, or invest. Our currency will be at risk.

More big banks will be bailed out, more money created out of thin air will be used to prop up irresponsible national governments overseas and crony business interests in the U.S., and more aid will be given to Islamists of Egypt, Gaza, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan will languish until Obama decides that it’s pointless to continue, something which is obvious now, and we’ll likely see further military adventures in other places.

 There will be even more support for labor union thuggery from such as the SEIU, which does not hide its sympathy with the Communist Party, nor its willingness to act violently if it so chooses. Forced unionism will be backed even more strongly by the Administration.

Environmentalist weirdness will increase, and be the excuse for even more denials and delays in oil and gas drilling, and even more stupid green energy fiascos. The EPA will be given more and more leeway to over-regulate everything until many more businesses fail, unable to comply with the unending rules.

A Rasmussen poll, out today, shows Mitt Romney in a statistical tie with Obama among likely voters. Since Rick Santorum has dropped out of the presidential race, the nominee will be Mitt Romney. I hope he will stay true to his conservative promises and that Republicans will unite to support him. We need a president who is in favor of America being returned to normal, not increasingly whacked out. If Obama wins, freedom will continue to disappear. America will be in a constant crisis mode under a government managing for decline. And probably still blaming George W. Bush.

Related articles

• Laura Ingraham On IRS Obamacare Implementation Funds: 'Even For President Obama, It's Really Kind of Low Rent' (mediaite.com)
• Obama is Losing His War on the Supreme Court, But Winning His Wars on Women & the Economy (johnmalcolm.me)
• Obama Secretly Shifts Half a Billion Dollars to Feed His ObamaCare Leviathan... And Hopes You Won't Notice (tarpon.wordpress.com)

Obama Unbound (Part 1)

Dreamstime.com

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

If President Barack Obama is reelected, he will be in office four more years without having to worry about another election, and hence even less accountable to the American people than he has been thus far. The mainstream media will cover for him, slant things his way, rarely criticize him, and generally be his obedient servants. He won’t have to worry much about the truth being published, and even when it is he won’t be much affected.

So what would be the prospects for America in an Obama second term? We haven’t fared too well during his first term. Most of the “change” we’ve seen has left us “hoping” for something to reverse many of the changes. Perhaps the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare, but there is no guarantee. If they do, a second Obama term would likely see an effort to introduce single-payer insurance, especially if Democrats are somehow able to retain the Senate majority and regain the House majority. Only a GOP filibuster would stand in their way.

In all probability, we would see several more Solyndra-type debacles with billions of dollars wasted in grants, loan guarantees, and subsidies to enterprises that are doomed to failure from the start for lack of market. All to satisfy the enviro-fascists, who are willing to sacrifice economic recovery for ill-fated “green” programs that won’t work. Oh, and Mr. Obama might get another crack at cap and trade, though at the moment it seems the global warming scare is being more widely seen as the fraud and hoax that it is.

The Food Stamp president would further expand the poverty rolls, create even more government-dependent families and do a great deal toward allowing the illegal immigrants to receive social services, unionize, and vote (Democratic, of course.)

The Buffet Rule states that no millionaire should be taxed at a rate less than 30 per cent. This would likely be heavily propagandized as a great necessity, using typical Marxist/Alinsky techniques of class warfare, claiming that failure to enact the Buffet Rule is the grossest injustice ever, and economic inequality is the main problem (except for the “God-awful recession we inherited,” as Vice President Joe Biden recently described it). Apparently the Bush Administration was so bad, its ill effects can never really be overcome. Not true, but it may take generations to undo Obama’s damage to our liberty, let alone our economy.

Obama, unfettered by electoral concerns, and already on record as having favored infanticide, may try to promote the killing of newborn babies because of their cost and carbon footprint. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently testified that more contraception would be an economic cost-saver.

Gay marriage figures to be even more of an in-your-face demand than ever, with Obama probably “pivoting” to a full endorsement of it in a second term. That would surprise basically no one.

Religious liberty would suffer further, with attempts to make it a “hate crime” to preach or advocate against homosexuality or Islam, as it already is in much of Europe. You can contrast Europe and other Western countries with America and see the still-great contrast between the U.S., which has the First Amendment (still sort of intact) and the others, which have no First Amendment guarantees, but still claim to be part of the “Free World.” And they are, in the sense that totalitarianism has not yet resorted to death camps, and it’s still possible to have a relatively pleasant life as long as you don’t say or do anything that someone might find offensive. In America, the First Amendment is under attack and needs special efforts at protecting it. A new Obama Administration would make progress toward finishing it off.

These are a few of the doubtful prospects under an Obama second term. Maybe he would do a lot of positive things, but I wish someone could show me even one beneficial policy he has got enacted in his presidency thus far. It is a sick joke for Democrats to accuse Romney of being “out of touch” compared to Obama, who daily displays his disdain for the Constitution and the American people. He is a special interest in himself, constantly grasping for more power and more money.

I like Rick Santorum and hope he will be the GOP nominee. But any of the four remaining GOP candidates, or whatever dark horse may emerge from the convention, would be greatly preferable to another four years of Obama as president.

Socialist dictatorship should not be our fate.

Stay tuned.

Related articles

• Obama Pushing "Buffett Rule" Tax (inquisitr.com)
• Why the Liberals made up the 'Republican War on Women' (examiner.com)

Talk Radio Hosts Discuss Obamacare Case and the Leftist Threat to America

At The Daley Gator, there are three short videos of Mark Levin’s comments on the oral arguments about Obamacare in the Supreme Court. He has an excellent analysis.

Also, Rush Limbaugh has posted a video version of the first hour of his March 28 program in which he discusses the leftist tyranny hanging over our country, exemplified by the Obamacare case and the fact that what the administration really wants is single-payer insurance. Our freedom and prosperity are severely threatened by this and other leftist policies. I wonder, along with Rush, how Obama has any chance of winning the election, but he does have a chance. For the sake of liberty and our economy, the incumbent president should be decisively defeated and the Democratic Party voted out of power.

Consistently Changing: Etch-a-Sketch Politics

Illustration: Dreamstime.com

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is currently in damage-control mode even though he won handily in the Illinois primary.  One of his top advisers, Eric Fehrnstrom, appearing on CNN, answered an interviewer’s question about whether Romney's conservative positions might be so far to the right as to hurt him with moderate voters, by saying that the general election campaign will be a new start, “almost like an Etch-a-Sketch.”

(h/t – The Last Refuge)

Romney, already carrying a reputation as a flip-flopper, has a significant, if perhaps temporary, problem. His GOP opponents are seizing on the comment as strong evidence that Romney is indeed a flip-flopper, and Tea Party conservatives cannot count on him not to sell them out for political advantage. Presumably, once in office, Romney could shake the Etch-a-Sketch yet again, depending on how the political winds are blowing.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum emphasized his own unchanging and principled conservative positions on campaign issues, and assured voters that he will not be changing to appeal to some different audience or some change in trends. This kind of consistency is reassuring, and Romney doesn’t provide it. The question is whether Romney is a man of core-belief conservatism or a pragmatic candidate who speaks what he thinks his audience wants to hear.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s response, according to an Associated Press article by Philip Elliott:

“My children had Etch A Sketches, they were great for car rides,” rival Newt Gingrich, badly trailing Romney in the polls, said in Lake Charles, La. “But you'll notice that their pictures aren't permanent, their pictures aren't locked down. You can redo it any time you want. That's the problem.”

“Here's Gov. Romney's staff, they don't even have the decency to wait until they get the nomination to explain to us how they'll sell us out,” Gingrich added. “And I think having an Etch A Sketch as your campaign model raises every doubt about where we're going.”

Romney said that he is not an Etch-a-Sketch but a conservative who can be relied upon to maintain conservative positions as promised.

From the same AP article:

“The issues I'm running on will be exactly the same," Romney said. "I'm running as a conservative Republican. I was a conservative governor. I will be running as a conservative Republican nominee — hopefully, nominee at that point. The policies and the positions are the same.”

If he turns out to be the nominee, I hope that will prove true. Meanwhile, his adviser has given Santorum, Gingrich, Obama, (and Ron Paul, if he cares to use it) a new, or at least more direct, avenue of attack regarding Romney’s flip-flopping tendencies.

Related article

• Romney tries to clean up Etch A Sketch mess (fox13now.com)

Debt Overshadows Other Urgent Problems

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

The liberal establishment has embarked on a phony campaign about a made-up issue, the so-called GOP War on Women. Only those Rush calls feminazis, i.e. the feminists who want to assure that as many abortions as possible are performed, (and now want every woman to get “free” birth control pills, courtesy of the insurance companies, Catholic institutions, etc.), really think there’s any such “war.” This whole dreary mess has been drummed up to conceal President Obama’s colossal failure on the economy, failure which threatens to make most other political issues moot.

When the next collapse hits, and it will unless things are reversed soon, there will be more widespread financial failure, which will be much more difficult to remedy than it would be to fix these things now. But what does Obama propose? More spending and higher taxes. That’s his answer for the economy. Don’t bother with the Keystone XL pipeline, or opening up more drilling, ANWR, deep water, fracking, or anything else, other than heavy subsidies and guarantees for Chevy Volt and the Solyndras of our country and other Obama cronies, and more crippling regulations for everyone else.  There is no way this qualifies as anything better than bad judgment. Obama’s economic policies are indefensible, no matter what the Administration says.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu says they’re trying to get gas prices down now, instead of up to European levels as Chu recommended in 2008. Maybe that’s true, until after the election. As Rush Limbaugh says this in his program transcript for 03/13/2012:

So in 2008, Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  That's what he said in 2008.  He was reminded of that comment today during his congressional testimony, and he backed away from it. “I no longer share that view,” said Chu to Senator Mike Lee, Republican, Utah.  Chu said, “When I became Secretary of Energy, I represented the United States government, and I think right now in this economic very slow return these prices could very well affect the comeback of our economy.” It sounds like he's not sure that gasoline prices might have a deleterious effect on the economy. 

So Chu is now saying his previous statements are no longer operational.  That's how the Democrats characterize their gaffes.

This just in – Rush Limbaugh site headline 03/15/2012: “Report: Obama to Release Oil from Strategic Reserve in Response to National Emergency of His Falling Poll Numbers.”

Mitt Romney has a great point about what we might receive from a re-elected Obama with no constraining concern about re-election. Of course, the global warming alarmists still want gas prices to increase so as to “force” development of “green” energy. (How’s that going lately? Hmm, Chevy Volt, Solyndra, and more recently, the Massachusetts state-aided -- by millions of dollars-- Evergreen Solar, which moved its manufacturing operations to China, and is now in federal bankruptcy court, as described by John Hayward at HumanEvents.)

Obama insists that oil is the “fuel of the past.”

Obama said that because the United States accounts for 20 percent of the world's consumption of oil but has only 2 percent of its petroleum reserves, “we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about or they aren't telling you the truth.”

Conservatives beg to differ. Just check Newt.org for an opposing view. Newt’s policy for getting gasoline to $2.50 per gallon or lower is certainly possible.

What Obama is saying is that he (Obama) is not going to be doing anything about it because in his view, nothing can be done. So don’t bother him with complaints about it.

Meanwhile, liberals are aghast at his drop in the polls, which can primarily be explained by the price of gasoline and the continuing high unemployment rate – about which nothing can be done either, apparently, other than vast increases in government spending, and stretching out unemployment payments even further.

According to Michael Barone, the president’s sinking numbers should not be surprising in spite of a temporary boost from the anti-Rush Limbaugh comments, etc.:

But the economic news has not been all that striking. We had a quarter in which economic growth reached 2.8%. We've had two months with job growth of better than 200,000.

Peachy. But in 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan's re-election, the gross domestic product rose 8.9% not just for one quarter but over the whole year. There were two months when job growth was 729,000 and 660,000.

That's the kind of economic recovery that enables an incumbent president's campaign to run a credible "Morning in America" ad. If the Obama campaign ran one now, it would be fodder for "Saturday Night Live" and Jon Stewart.

But as bad as the gas prices and unemployment numbers are, there’s an even bigger threat to our economy: the massive and increasing debt.

In February, the government posted its highest monthly deficit in history, $229 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

We are on track for another trillion-dollar-plus deficit this year, with no letup in sight. Our national debt now substantially exceeds our GDP. This cannot be sustained, and unless decisive and large measures are taken soon to correct it, we will face economic consequences which would be hard to believe. Many things would be at risk: national security, the dollar, and freedom, let alone Social Security and any general prosperity. Four more years of Obama would bring us to the very edge of the cliff, and most likely over it.

This is not intended to create fear, but simply to call attention to current realities that urgently need correction. When failing companies, banks, states, or countries are bailed out, it means debt is taken on by the government (i.e., taxpayers), debt which should have been liquidated through bankruptcy. Let failing entities fail, and the resources they misapplied can be reallocated to something more useful. When private businesses are subsidized by the government because they can’t make it in the marketplace, a serious error takes place. Everything the government subsidizes is a money-losing operation headed for failure unless the government continues to bail it out, throwing good money after bad. It’s like betting on a racehorse that has a bad leg. It’s unlikely to win no matter what you do.

Greece gives us something of an economic example in miniature. But there is no one to bail out the United States. Not Europe, Russia, China, India or Brazil. We need not experience the worst-case version of this, but we seriously need to stop all bailouts and government subsidies and stop this foolish spending. Only Republicans speak with any seriousness about cutting spending. With Democrats, it’s a little talk and no action. Any “cuts” they speak of are just slowing down the rate of growth, and even that never happens.

Until our fiscal house is in order, and some control is exercised over monetary policy, we should not expect great growth. Four more years of Obama practically guarantees more and worse economic decline.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) addresses the debt problem in this brief video from his CNN appearance prior to CPAC 2012:

His CPAC speech is here. Ryan’s budget proposal is perhaps the only serious attempt to address the problem. The Democrats are offering nothing but more debt.

Nine Sponsors Abandon Rush Limbaugh, Sign on with Radical Leftists

Rush Limbaugh

Photo: Last.fm

After Rush’s “controversial” comments about Sandra Fluke, and her weird testimony before Congress, the radical left has orchestrated a campaign to silence Rush by intimidating his sponsors. The main thing wrong with Rush’s comment was that he appeared to go after the person instead of the issue. His apology should be sufficient.

As Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator (h/t The Daley Gator) points out, the radical leftists are engaged in a coordinated effort to silence conservatives. They have been successful in getting Lou Dobbs off CNN, Glenn Beck off Fox News, Pat Buchanan off MSNBC, and now they’re intensifying their efforts to go after Rush.

One sponsor who has been with Rush’s show for a long time, Carbonite, is a special case, as Lord points out. CEO David Friend is closely associated with Soros-affiliated groups, Media Matters, MoveOn.org and the like, and has a history of supporting radical leftist entities.

If you are interested in standing up for Rush Limbaugh, or at least finding out that there is more to the story than simple indignation by these sponsors, who are behaving in a cowardly fashion, you should read Lord’s article in full. It’s eight pages long and filled with substantial information, not some conspiracy-theory nonsense.

This is another example of how the left is attacking free speech in America. Note that even the president got involved.  He’s one of those who wants Rush to go away. Fluke, meanwhile, Lord points out, has stopped a pro-life speech at Cornell by protest, and she was also a guest on the Ed Schultz show after the Limbaugh comments. Schultz once called talk-radio star Laura Ingraham a “slut,” but I suppose Fluke was OK with that. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin worse than that, but certainly the left has no problem with it.

The CEO of Carbonite hypocritically says he hopes their withdrawal of sponsorship will help lead to more “civil discourse.” I purchased Carbonite’s service because of Rush’s ads, and found it to be quite good, but I won’t be renewing next time.