Obama's Foreign Influence

* Russia gives asylum to intelligence leaker Snowden. In retaliation, Barack Obama cancels a meeting with Putin.
* Mexico releases from prison a drug lord who ordered the killing of an American drug agent. U.S. officials are "outraged."
* While Barack Obama says al Qaeda is "decimated," they were involved in the Benghazi attacks and are said to be stronger than ever.
America doesn't seem to have the same influence with other countries 

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXIX

Victor Davis Hansen wrote a column recently detailing the Obama administration's institutional deceptions ("When Untruth Undermines Democracy"). His point is summarized very succinctly with this one passage:

There is also Utopian arrogance in Washington that justifies any means necessary to achieve exalted ends of supposed fairness and egalitarianism. If one has to lie to stop the Tea Party or Fox News, then it is not quite seen by this administration as a lie.

A Conservative Shaggy Dog Story

From a piece on Roger Ailes. Ailes told this story:

It seems a liberal in a hot-air balloon is lost and late for an appointment and descends to ask a conservative for directions. The conservative pulls out a GPS device and tells him exactly where he is.

“You must be a conservative,” the balloon man says. The man on the ground asks how he knows that. The reply: “Everything you’ve told me is technically correct, I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is, I’m still lost. Frankly, you haven’t been very much help so far.”

The conservative replies that the balloon guy must be a liberal. How does he know? The punch line: “You don’t know where you’re going or where you’ve been, you’ve risen to where you are on hot air, and you made a promise that you have no idea how to keep. Now you expect me to solve your problems. The fact is, you’re in the same place you were before we met and now it’s my fault!”

Obama's Work (?) Force

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the unemployment numbers for May, and the official unemployment rate has ticked back up to 7.6%. The data provide a bleak employment picture of Obama's term in office. For example, 1.7 million more Americans are considered "not in the labor force" (and therefore not considered "unemployed") than a year ago. After 4+ years under Obama, the percentage of the population working shows a trend that is frightening, and receives little attention. Here's a graphic display of it.

It's a simple equation: Fewer people working = bad for the economy. That the official unemployment rate doesn't count these people doesn't change the reality of our situation. Obama and the Democrats are driving the American economy into the ground. And Obama has almost a full term to continue his damage.

Other people say smart stuff, too - Part XXXVIII

Keith Riler recently wrote a column in American Thinker. The column, "Obama's Shrinking Unit of Account," paints a devastating portrait of Barack Obama and his reduced accountability -- using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The "unit of account," according to Riler, is a GAAP concept that refers to an entity for which results can be clearly distinguished and accountability logically required.  It might be an operating segment, a reporting unit, the whole company, or all of the above.  Whether a company comprises one unit of account or several, in the business world, executive management is responsible for them all."

For example, in 2008 when Obama connected himself with "receding oceans," his unit of account was the whole planet. When Michelle Obama said, after her husband was elected, "for the first time I'm proud of my country," that was a national unit of account.

Read Riler's article to see how small Obama's "unit of account" is in connection to Benghazi, the IRS, etc.

Democrat culture

One aspect of the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups is worth mentioning. With Democrats, no direct orders for such things have to be given. It’s part of their culture. When they’re in power, everything the government touches, Democrats own, and what they own they use for political gain. (Imagine what they’ll be able to do with Obamacare.) Private files and independent agencies don’t exist. Remember Hillary Clinton and the FBI files in 1993-94. (“Filegate”) Obama will punish the ones who got caught (although cushy spots in other Liberal organizations likely await) and replace them with different operatives who will continue the process. 

Benghazi for Dummies

Mark Baisley has written a great column, "Benghazi for Dummies," which provides a clear explanation of the confusing details surrounding the September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic outpost and the deaths of four Americans. The story has been muddled, perhaps purposely, so much that it's difficult for a regular person to get a grasp on what happened. Baisley's column helps.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXVII

This certainly explains a lot:

"It is not enough for the insecure left to deem a position wrong; if it’s merely wrong, it needs to be argued about, and it can’t survive that. It must instead be morally abhorrent, so that the zealot reacts to the toxin of questioning much like a jogger coming across a decomposing body on the side of the road — it must be internalized that the correct response to such a horror is to retch, and faint, and call the authorities post-haste.

This is how the leftist faith protects itself from the infection of doubt. (Meanwhile, of course, patting itself on the back for being so open-minded…)" - John Hawkins

Many Uncertainties

"Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown" was the headline for a recent Reuters story. It turns out that almost none of the climate scientists predicted the lack of warming that has occurred in recent years.

Climate science has something in common with horoscopes and fortune tellers. Confidence in their predictions is higher when the results are either so vague, or so far in the future, that accuracy can't be measured. For example, we had predictions of arctic ice melting, raising the sea level by anywhere from three to twenty feet, flooding coastlines and destroying cities. When this didn't happen, predictions got fuzzy. It turns out that "global warming" can manifest itself by extremely hot weather, or by extremely cold weather. Extreme precipitation or extreme drought. More violent hurricanes, or fewer violent hurricanes. Climate scientists making predictions covered all their bases. Except now they're struggling to come up with an explanation for the lack of global warming. And, the article says, "some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties." 

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg.  

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years, said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

The Liberal Mantra

The Liberal Mantra.

Can I choose a large drink? No, it is not good for you
Can I choose an incandescent bulb? No, it is not good for the environment
Can I choose low cost coal? No, it is not good for the planet
Can I choose to honor God? No, that's offensive 
Can I choose to eat fast food? No, it is unhealthy
Can I choose to own a gun? No, think of the children.
What can I choose? An abortion

(Hat tip to Human Events commenter TripleA60.)

Well, here's a good sign

Joe Klein, the not-Conservative political columnist for Time magazine recently wrote a column entitled "Obamacare Incompetence." Some quotes: "We are now seeing weekly examples of this Administration’s inability to govern....the notion of activist government will be in peril—despite the demographics flowing the Democrats’ way—if institutions like the VA and Obamacare don’t deliver the goods." 

And I think we'll all agree that there's little chance of that. It's a shame we're only getting these stories after last November's elections.

Where does the buck stop?

Obama has been in office for more than four years. At what point is he held responsible for anything? For years it was "blame Bush." Now it's "blame Republicans," or "blame insurance companies" or "blame oil companies." Obama's policies, endorsed and rammed through during Democrat control of Congress, have created an economic environment where businesses have been terrified of moving because of mistrust of how the Obama administration would punish them for something.

Now the reports are that Obamacare -- Obama's flagship "accomplishment" -- will cost nearly a trillion dollars more than we were told, more people will pay higher insurance premiums than we were told, businesses will pay more fees than we were told, fewer people will be covered than we were told, and hidden provisions -- e.g., forcing the Catholic Church to cover birth control and abortions, against their religious teaching -- have wider and deeper impacts than we were told. 

Bush & co. were wrong about Iraq's WMDs -- but so were 99.9% of Democrats and the rest of the civilized world. Much more evidence exists that the Democrat party, and Obama in particular, have repeatedly deceived and lied to the American public than that the Bush administration ever did. It's about time for Obama to face his "proper comeuppance" (to quote the Washington Post.) 

I hate to say I told you so, but...

The "Beige Book," the report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on current economic conditions, confirms a lot of what Republicans and other opponents predicted about Obamacare. The Governors report economic trends from their various Districts around the country, usually centered around a large city such as Kansas City, San Francisco, Minneapolis, etc.

From the section "Consumer Spending and Tourism" -- "Many District contacts commented on the expired payroll tax holiday and the Affordable Care Act as having restrained sales growth." 

From the section "Labor" -- "Employers across the District continued to cite the Affordable Care Act and its unknown impacts as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."

From the section "Nonfinancial Services" -- "Some contacts noted concern that client companies are hiring the absolute minimum to get by due to uncertainty about the Affordable Care Act."

Remember how before the Obamacare legislation was passed, Democrats mocked opponents' predictions as "doom and gloom?" When you add the slowdown in consumer spending and business hiring to the already-more-expensive-than-Democrats-promised cost of Obamacare, it's not much of a leap to believe 1) Obamacare is going to cripple the American economy; and 2) The quality of our health care is just as likely to decline as it is to improve. So far Democrats have proven clueless in their predictions about its effects.

Not-so-painful cuts

Daniel J. Mitchel wrote a column ("Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us These "Deep Spending Cuts" You Keep Writing About") that points out the absurdity of calling the budget adjustments resulting from sequestration "cuts."

I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

For those more visually oriented, here's Mitchell's chart illustrating the budget "cuts."

Who owns sequestration?

Sequestration is the group of automatic budget cuts that go into effect if Congress and the White House are not able to reach a budget deal. It's part of the 2010 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act.  

What's really funny is Obama railing against the sequester even though it's a Democrat rule signed into law by Obama. The bill passed the Senate 60-40 on strict party lines. It passed the House 233-187, with 233 Democrats and no Republicans voting Aye and 172 Republicans (and 15 Democrats) voting No. Republicans opposed the sequestration, saying it was just an excuse for Democrats to raise taxes. Lo and behold, look at what Obama insists on.

When you think of politicians who want to raise taxes, which party is it that automatically comes to mind?

Who's the bully?

Associated Press writer Connie Cass, in her story "Why can't Washington compromise? They're too human," chides House Republicans for "bullying" Obama and Democrats over the cuts scheduled if and when sequestration takes effect. She even quotes Barbara Coloroso, an expert on bullying. 

"Bullying is about contempt for the other person," Coloroso said. "Do you see how that fits with some of the people in Congress? Utter contempt, bullying, wanting to bring somebody down. You cannot resolve a major issue like a budget with name-calling, with disdain for the person you're supposed to be working with."

Some thoughts: 

• Barack Obama to Republicans questioning his stimulus plan, 2009: "I won." 
• Barack Obama to Republicans, 2009: "Shut up and get out of the way." 
• Republican input into the Obama stimulus plan and Obamacare, orchestrated behind closed doors and rammed through by Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: Zero.

Obama's and other Democrats' contempt and disdain -- bullying -- of Republicans was on fine display the last four years. Like "bipartisanship," such terms only get tossed around in the media when Democrats don't automatically get everything they want.

Gripey Blog Readers

Both the readers of this blog have griped at me about not posting. I'm gonna start posting the webpages I write for the drug treatment center I'm working with. 
That'll show 'em.

A Political Solution

Here's a thought: 

Why don't we take all the proposed solutions such as thorough background checks, mental health screening, severe penalties for providing false information, etc., and apply them equally to both gun ownership and voting? 

1. More harm has been done with votes than with guns. 
2. Law-abiding, honest citizens would have nothing to fear.
3. What's good enough for one constitutional right ought to be good enough for another.

Paying for tax cuts

Just a thought: In recent years, politicians have argued about tax cuts having to "pay for themselves." In this view, people keeping more of their own money is considered an "expense" to the government.  Every nickel of their own money that  taxpayers get to keep constitutes a debit on the government's account sheet.  What we get to keep ("take-home pay") adds to the federal deficit, so anyone who wants to keep more of what they earn must want to increase the national debt. This philosophy comforts politicians who insist on raising taxes to pay for government spending. It's much easier than dealing with the paradox of telling Americans they have to get by on less money because the politicians refuse to.   

I hate always being right

FoxNews headline, January 11, 2012: "Millions noticing paychecks lighter today, due to payroll tax hike"

Whattaya know, two months after the election, and almost two years before the next one, our taxes go up. Remember that "nobody making under $200,000 will pay more in taxes" promise? Remember how many of us were saying that was just a flat-out lie? 

For anyone who voted Democrat in the last four years, congratulations, you're reaping what you sowed.