Just moments ago, the District Court in Florida, has moved against ObamaCare in it entirety . . . . all 2,700 pages. Judge Vinson's decision allows the process of writing and funding the bill to continue, but, because there is no severability clause within the bill, Vinson could not pass judgment against the mandate only, forcing him to judge against the entire bill. Vinson issued regrets for having to widen the scope of his decision.
This is the largest of the 17 lawsuits filed against the bill, involving the joint filing of 26 states. Two previous decisions found in favor of the bill and, now, two filings have received negative judgments with the decision, today, being the most comprehensive. 13 remain to be decided.
Most experts believe the Supreme Court will get this case in late 2012 or 2013. If a High Court decision comes before the 2012 elections, it promises to have a great effect on the election, one way or another.
Comcast buys controlling interest in NBC/MSNBC "news" and begins moving the radicals off the MSNBC set
Kieth Olbermann, the leading news blowhard in network broadcasting was forced out within weeks of the Comcast take-over of the news network. Pay no attention to the counter talk from the Olbermann camp; the man was fired and in a rather inglorious fashion.
But Comcast is far from being finished with its shake-up of the radical news service at MSNBC. After Olbermann's ouster, they issued a warning to Ed Shultz to "tone it down." He got in their face over that warning and Comcast responded by taking his evening show down. If you want to listen to this fat Marxist spew his version of hate America, you will have to turn off Glenn Beck at Fox during the same time slot filled with Shultz nonsense.
Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, the broadcasting babe taking Olbermann's time slot, are the remaining radicals. Matthews was demoted more than a year ago because of his abusive treatment of Hillary Clinton during the Obama campaign and Maddow talks as if she is itching for a fight -- not realizing, apparently, that she is an absolute nobody without MSNBC. Kieth Olbermann brought her to the network, and now that he is gone, we wonder if her power base left with his departure.
Point of post: just to remind the radicals that they have lost the war. Liberalism will continue, of course, But radical socialism is on its way out along with its very important ally in Mr. Obama, but the American people are in the process of rejecting his Marxist version of redistributionist justice.
But Comcast is far from being finished with its shake-up of the radical news service at MSNBC. After Olbermann's ouster, they issued a warning to Ed Shultz to "tone it down." He got in their face over that warning and Comcast responded by taking his evening show down. If you want to listen to this fat Marxist spew his version of hate America, you will have to turn off Glenn Beck at Fox during the same time slot filled with Shultz nonsense.
Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, the broadcasting babe taking Olbermann's time slot, are the remaining radicals. Matthews was demoted more than a year ago because of his abusive treatment of Hillary Clinton during the Obama campaign and Maddow talks as if she is itching for a fight -- not realizing, apparently, that she is an absolute nobody without MSNBC. Kieth Olbermann brought her to the network, and now that he is gone, we wonder if her power base left with his departure.
Point of post: just to remind the radicals that they have lost the war. Liberalism will continue, of course, But radical socialism is on its way out along with its very important ally in Mr. Obama, but the American people are in the process of rejecting his Marxist version of redistributionist justice.
Palin is now using the power of the press against them and they are powerless to stop her.
In a Reno speech on Saturday, Governor Palin said she thinks a recently discussed media boycott of her is good thing because then she won't get "blamed" for the uprising in Egypt. Understand that the so-called "media Palin boycott" will not happen. New outlets, legitimate news outlets, do not boycott news.This suggested month long [February] boycott proves my claim of a genetic failing within the physiology of the individual Leftist's brain center. This is like a swimmer telling folks he is going to boycott water, or a bald man saying he is going to boycott hair. It ain't going to happen.
The Huffington Post, a radially Marxist rag, offers this report: According to a report by The Daily Beast, Palin made a clear reference to Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank's widely circulated pledge not to write anything about her for the whole of February. Milbank wrote that, since Palin did not hold political office and had become "more like Ann Coulter," he would try to ease his "obsession" with writing about her, or mentioning her in any media appearance, for a month.
Speaking at a meeting of the Safari Club, a hunting organization, Palin apparently said that was fine with her. The boycott, she said, "sounds good, because there's a lot of chaos in Cairo, and I can't wait to not get blamed for it--at least for a month."
The humor of it all is found in the fact that the Media is the very source of much of Palin's power. Palin's media power, ironically, was birthed from a strategy of destruction leveled against her. Talk about your "silver lining." They turned on the faucet and now, they cannot turn it off. You would think that they would get tired of being stupid. Maybe not.
Court decision, today, could strike down ObamaCare . . . . again.
Sometime before this day is over, and it is approaching noon on the East Coast, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida, is expected to publish his decision of ObamaCare and a lawsuit brought against the government challenging the individual mandate making the bill's funding possible and enforceable [on a national level].
While no one knows how the judge will decide, we do know that Judge Vinson issued an earlier legal opinion last October which included this statement. "The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent."
There have been three Federal Court decisions regarding the health care bill, two in support of the current individual mandate provision and one against.
Most constitutional experts believe the individual mandate to be unconstitutional in that, for the first time in US history, the Federal Government has ordered every US citizen to purchase a product intended for their protection. More than that, the "product," in time, will fall under the total and complete control of the Federal Government.
While the bill addresses certain problematic issues, it fails in the most important of criteria, it cannot pay for itself. In fact, within the second decade of the this bill - beginning in2025 - the cost for ObamaCare is estimated to rise to as much as 11 trillion dollars for the decade or more than a trillion per year.
m
While no one knows how the judge will decide, we do know that Judge Vinson issued an earlier legal opinion last October which included this statement. "The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent."
There have been three Federal Court decisions regarding the health care bill, two in support of the current individual mandate provision and one against.
Most constitutional experts believe the individual mandate to be unconstitutional in that, for the first time in US history, the Federal Government has ordered every US citizen to purchase a product intended for their protection. More than that, the "product," in time, will fall under the total and complete control of the Federal Government.
While the bill addresses certain problematic issues, it fails in the most important of criteria, it cannot pay for itself. In fact, within the second decade of the this bill - beginning in2025 - the cost for ObamaCare is estimated to rise to as much as 11 trillion dollars for the decade or more than a trillion per year.
m
Palin and the conservative movement she helped to spawn is already working for 2012.
Kate Zernike / New York Times:
Tea Party Gets Early Start on G.O.P. Targets for 2012 — Leaders of more than 70 Tea Party groups in Indiana gathered last weekend to sign a proclamation saying they would all support one candidate — as yet undetermined — in a primary challenge to Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican who has represented the state since 1977.
Sean J. Miller / Ballot Box: House Dem: Liberal groups need to back off for party to win in 2012 — Liberal groups need to stay out of Democratic primaries if the party is going to retake the House majority, according to a conservative Massachusetts Democrat. — Rep. Stephen Lynch was one of several Democrats who faced
Editor's notes: the two stories are related in the most obvious of details; each is about the coming 2012 elections. Big difference between the two, however; one presents a political movement that knows who it is and where it is going and the other presents a party hoping for feigned moderation as it tries to put the pieces back together.
The Democrat Party has completely lost its way and is so far south of popular political opinion as to think it is just fine. . . . . . kind of like thirsting to death in the desert while "seeing" water all around.
I personally think it is funny.
Editor's notes: the two stories are related in the most obvious of details; each is about the coming 2012 elections. Big difference between the two, however; one presents a political movement that knows who it is and where it is going and the other presents a party hoping for feigned moderation as it tries to put the pieces back together.
The Democrat Party has completely lost its way and is so far south of popular political opinion as to think it is just fine. . . . . . kind of like thirsting to death in the desert while "seeing" water all around.
I personally think it is funny.
An open letter to Obama from Academia and what a layman biker dude finds wrong with the memo.
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama
January 30, 2011 By
Dear President Obama:
As political scientists, historians, and researchers in related fields who have studied the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.
For thirty years, our government has spent billions of dollars to help build and sustain the system the Egyptian people are now trying to dismantle. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Egypt and around the world have spoken. We believe their message is bold and clear: Mubarak should resign from office and allow Egyptians to establish a new government free of his and his family’s influence. It is also clear to us that if you seek, as you said Friday “political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people,” your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants.
There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region.
Sincerely,Jason Brownlee, University of Texas at Austin [contact to sign]
Joshua Stacher, Kent State University
Tamir Moustafa, Simon Fraser University
Arang Keshavarzian, New York University
Clement Henry, University of Texas at Austin
and 95 additional names. The list is a dynamic list, inviting more and more signatures.
Editor's notes: we have just read
a brief but substantial letter to Mr. Obama from the reigning intelligentsia of this country with the hopes of influencing him to a not-so specific end. They are academics with impressive resume' and I, your humble editor, am much more a recreational biker dude and wrestling coach than anything else.Here is the problem this layman sees in the above letter: it is borne of the opinion that "geostrategies" and a "shared values" agenda are mutually exclusive. The memo implies that Obama should stop with the one and begin with the other. Nonsense.
First, if we allow for nations to be sovereign, we have no choice but to draw from certain geo-centric considerations.
Second, international politics are not monochromatic in their construct. On the one hand [for example] you have the hopes and dreams of "the people." On the other hand, you have a government that may or may not be in sync with those hopes and dreams. A successful international politic must weigh one reality against the other and develop a particular strategy for each country and, again, for each region of the world.
Third, our strategy -- we are talking about the United States of America, right? -- should always reflect a third and critical factor, the values and dreams as described in our founding documents. Understand that if the "founding documents" of this country are not a determinant factor in the staging of a particular strategy, to what shall we appeal as we measure our national values and hope against those of our neighbors? Karl Marx? Bill Maher? The hundred cosigners to the above letter? Or the very philosophies driving this nation's political evolution, correcting wrongs along the way and providing for the common good?
I personally thought it somewhat humorous to read an Obama quote in the above memo, "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." Funny, but that is exactly what Obama is attempting to do, he and his Marxist hordes in both the Socialist Free Press and the college classroom - you know, where these academics earn their living and drive their agendas. Try pressing conservative values and agenda and see how far it takes you in Academia Land.
Finally, if Academiaville intends to be helpful in the giving of advice, it needs to be the master of the specific and purveyor of practical application. Tell us, for example, what we should have done differently and specifically over the past 30 years. Should we have ignored Egypt? Should we have refused to partner with that country at any level, in spite of the fact that it was critical to peace in the region. And why is this not about the "evil and misguided" agenda of nation building, only "for the right" reasons?????
It is easy to criticize and sound great in that rhetorical polemic. It is something quite different to map out a strategy that works at some level for all concerned -- assuming that such is possible.
Is the open letter off base or wrong headed? Not really; it is just that the author(s) did not take time to finish the thing.
A record month for Midknight Review belies the growing concern of the American voter.
Your very friendly editor and, yes, I am smiling. We set a record for the month of January with a "hit" total of 10,046 [counting four of our pages including the main page] and a gross total of 51,543 in the first six months of the new Google counter installed on Blogspot blogs such as Midknight Review. We are a very small-time blog, by comparison to others. Imagine, however, the accumulative impact of hundreds of conservative blogs such as ours. Before Rush Limbaugh in 1988, there was no alternative media available for conservative talk.
Time will tell just how important this media collusion is, but we think it to be extensive . . . . and the current conservative collective has come alive since Obama's take over this country. Understand that Obama brought his army of volunteers to the 2008 elections. There was no counter force in existence. Today, there is and it is every bit as substantial as Obama's OFA. That is why he is attempting to regulate the Internet via FCC regulation. He needs to stop conservative talk well before the 2012 elections. It does not appear that he will be successful in this effort. That being said, we know the coming election cycle will be very different from the first [2010] in that the Marxist Media has much more competition than Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Tammy Bruce, Levin, and so on. The Silent Majority has come alive and will not be silenced by anything Obama might do.
m
Of all possible aternatives to the Middle East story, Obama throwing a party with his media pals did not come to mind.
We have been very busy this weekend, but we have kept up with what is happening in Egypt. We really have nothing much to write about until this event takes form. Right now, we all are looking at sheer chaos. There is simply no advantage to analysis that extends beyond what we have written two posts down.
There is the chance that this whole thing will blow over and life will go on as before. Not likely, but there is a chance.
There are the opportunists, waiting in the wings, hoping to insert themselves into the government of Egypt. Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood -- they are waiting and hoping and very very dangerous. In fact, alliances are being made as we write, with the intentions of taking Egypt for Radical Islam (read this article ).
Surprisingly, there are those who hope that Obama will ride to the rescue and save the day according to an article in the Jerusalem Post here. Surprised, I say, but not completely unexpected.
But that does not include this story. In the midst of the single worst disaster in recent memory, we have Obama making a party with his journoList buds. Here is what one reporter had to say about the Saturday night gala.
There is the chance that this whole thing will blow over and life will go on as before. Not likely, but there is a chance.
There are the opportunists, waiting in the wings, hoping to insert themselves into the government of Egypt. Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood -- they are waiting and hoping and very very dangerous. In fact, alliances are being made as we write, with the intentions of taking Egypt for Radical Islam (read this article ).
Surprisingly, there are those who hope that Obama will ride to the rescue and save the day according to an article in the Jerusalem Post here. Surprised, I say, but not completely unexpected.
But that does not include this story. In the midst of the single worst disaster in recent memory, we have Obama making a party with his journoList buds. Here is what one reporter had to say about the Saturday night gala.
While Cairo Burns, Obama Parties
The Washington A-List was out in force Saturday night at the farewell party for senior adviser David Axelrod, with a roster of guests featuring Cabinet secretaries, big shot journos and – President Obama.
As revolution threatened to sweep Egypt and possibly other allies – with the horrifying prospect of Islamism replacing reliable friends – the president was on view partying with the IN crowd.
The skepticism beyond the Beltway about whether Washington is just one big Love-In certainly gets fed by the sight – as conveyed by the press pool report – of reporters like ABC’s Jake Tapper, NBC’s Chuck Todd, National Journal’s Major Garrett, and John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times emerging from a bash with the president that was held to toast his chief political fixer and leading spinmeister.
I understand why reporters would do this – other than the admittedly pathetic notion that, gosh, it’s fun to party with the president of the United States! It is pretty good for building sources and getting inside dope. But man, it ain’t easy smacking the White House with tough stories all the time if you’re getting invited to their exclusive parties, now is it?
Also on hand were Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The party was at the Washington residence of Linda Douglass, the former hard-hitting ABC reporter who dropped out of journalism to spin the health care bill out of the White House. She’s now a VP at Atlantic Media.
So we have an official with a journalism outfit – Atlantic Media – HOSTING a party for the president and his consigliere.
Mrs. Obama stayed home. Good for her. Maybe she was monitoring the situation in Egypt. link.
**********
Midknight Review has found no reference to this party time story in the Obama Media. None.
Sounds Like A Plan. Really ??
Weekly Address: “America Will Win the Future by Out-Innovating, Out-Educating, and Out-Building Our Competitors”
That is the headline. It comes from the White House blog site. Apparently this is Obama's strategy for the future of this country. Next thing you know, we will all bow in prayer for world peace and the abolition of evil everywhere.
That is the headline. It comes from the White House blog site. Apparently this is Obama's strategy for the future of this country. Next thing you know, we will all bow in prayer for world peace and the abolition of evil everywhere.
Obama 's spending: Was it a strategy or was it just hardcore spending?? We have the answer.
Here is a two year old graph produced by the Heritage Foundation representing the Bush Debt compared to the projected debt of the Obama Administration.It gets a little confusing, but a president leaves office on Jan 20th, of whatever year ---- at the same time the new president is sworn into office. As it turns our, his departure is almost four months into his final fiscal year which ends on the last day of September following his departure in January. Any spending that actually occurs during the fiscal year ending in September is charged against the outgoing president. For example, the Obama Stimulus (originally set at $787 billion) and the his first Omnibus bill (a $400 billion piece of legislation) were charged against Bush because they occurred during his last fiscal year beginning October 1 of 2008.
In the chart above, the bar reflecting the last fiscal year of Bush is one labeled "09" on the bar graph. It is colored in red when, in fact, it should have been colored gray, for Bush's final fiscal year. Always remember that when Democrats charge Bush for that last year, 1.2 trillion was Obama's working -- all Obama. In other words, that final Bush fiscal year was worth 1.7 trillion in added debt. Only half a billion of that total belongs to Bush, however. Obama spent the money and then accused Bush of driving us off the cliff. Sweeeeet.
That is our first point.
A second point has to do with today's report concerning the 2011 fiscal year's annual debt: it will come in at more than 1.5 trillion . The White House projection was for a little over .8 billion. Turns out that it will be nearly twice that amount with billion dollar debt each year for years into the future. The sad truth of the matter is that the Obama spending "strategy" did not include a reasonable analysis of its effect on the national debt. In fact, it completely underestimated the disastrous circumstance it would create, proving itself to be thoughtless beyond belief, and hardly a "strategy." No, it was not a strategy, it was just spending.
And when we argue that it was just spending, we mean what we said. Did you know that the Obama Administration and the Marxist 111th Congress never wrote a budget nor voted on a single one of the 13 spending bills required to run the government for the fiscal year ??? It was due last March. The new fiscal year began October 1, 2010, and to this day, we do not have so much as an outline of a budget. Sooooo, when we say "it was just spending," you can see why? Understand that this is the first time in our history that a budget was not even presented in outlined form. Another first for Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
f
The Middle East is in flames and Obama is worried about the national politic and his re-election. Say it isn't so, Joe.
Oil and Israel keep the US critically involved in the Middle East. But the matter is much more involved than this. What is not mentioned much in the press is the fact that before we invaded Iraq, there were two imperialist states in the Middle East: Iraq and Iran. The neighboring states had been concerned for the imperialist tendencies of both countries for years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, their fears became justified.The post Bush Iraq is a much more passive nation, leaving only Iran as the Middle East's primary concern. The fact of the matter is that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and others join with Israel in the desire to have the United States continue a [military] presence in the region. We are not in the Middle East simply to insure that our "addiction" for oil be fed, as many liberal critics would have you believe. Understand that if Egypt fell into the hands of radical Islam and Israel was destroyed, it would be only a matter of time before most of Africa would become a breeding ground for Extreme Islam. This Radical Islamic Wave would then move through Turkey, where it already has a foothold, and into Europe from the South.
What must never be forgotten or lost in this evolving circumstance is that Radical Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world and is determined to overwhelm its non-Islamic neighbors in the name of allah. That is what is going on in the Middle East. Currently, these Middle Eastern states are in the hands of Extreme Islam: Syria, Gaza, Iran, Qatar and the Sudan. Standing on the verge of Radial Islamic rule are Turkey, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libyia, and east of the Middle East proper, Pakistan. If these six nations became states of Radical Islam within the year, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to make alliances with Extreme Islam. Israel would be destroyed, United States' influence within this vast region lost, and our national economy put into a death spiral.
And where is Obama? He has refused to visit Israel since becoming "president." He has sided with the anti-Israeli forces in branding Israel an "occupier" of the West Bank (see his Cairo speech). He has worked to give $900 billion in aid to Hamas in Gaza [1], on one occasion and another $400 billion on a second occasion[2] a year later. He has publicly humiliated Israel's Prime Minister on several occasion, first [for example] walking out of a White House meeting to go have din din with the family and, again, refusing to take pictures with the Prime Minister. He has sat around the White House for two stinking years, doing nothing while Iran has worked to become a nuclear power right under the nose of Mr. Obama. His "sanctions" against Iran, described, by some, as the harshest in modern history, have proven to be just the opposite. The Administration has promoted more than 10,000 exceptions to its Iranian Sanction Policy as reported in The Hill (December 24, 2010) [3] -- investigations to follow in the new House of Representatives.
Tonight, we watch as Egypt burns. Will the radicals take charge of the student rebellion? Can a hated Mubarak survive long enough to transition a new and equally sectarian, pro-West government? And, as if the situation was not bad enough, we have these headlines describing an ever increasing crisis within the region raising even more critical questions:
Thousands protest in Jordan, demand PM step down...
Huge anti-government protest in Albania...
New protests erupt in Yemen...
An even larger question is this: will Obama concern himself more with looking like a leader than actually dealing with the situation? Understand that if the Middle East goes up in smoke, Obama will not survive the 2012 elections and his signature legislation, ObamaCare, will surely be taken down by a succeeding Republican regime. He HAS to win re-election.
While Biden is busy defending Mubarak in this Hill report, the Telegraph is reporting an Administration secretly supporting the rebellion. While the article in the Telegraph implies Bush Administration involvement, we believe this misrepresents the facts in an effort to give Obama an "out" in the event that his strategies backfire. We have good reason to make this charge in view of the reporting by ABC news that Obama's main man, David Axelrod, is quoted as saying that "on several occasions [Obama} directly confronted Mubarack" in an effort "to get ahead of this [crisis] " cf the ABC report.
And there you have it, a brief over-view of the Middle East Crisis and the pending political crisis for Mr. Obama. We have an entire region out of control on the one hand and , on the other, an administration that does not know its foreign policy butt from a jar of kosher pickles.
We are all sooooo screwed.
End Notes:
1. Aid to Gaza is noted in this NY Times article. The fantasy that the money will go to the Palestinian people, not Hamas, is preposterous in view of the fact that Hamas is the ruling entity in Gaza. The money was set aside on or before Feb. 21, 2009, just two or three days after the signing of the infamous Stimulus Bill.
2. June of 2010 as reported in The Hill.
3. Understand that such reporting by the Times is nothing more than rhetorical cover for an Administration currently (in the first months of Obama's rule) pushing a love affair with the Muslim world. Within six days of his inauguration, Obama had given his first "press conference" and it was not with an American news outlet. Rather , it was with al Jazeera, the Arab news service for the Middle East. In June of 2009, he went to the University of Cairo to give a "major speech" to the Islamic World. The report of this speech can be found in an article published by PBS (emphasis on "BS") . Since giving that speech, Obama has failed to build upon its rhetorical beginnings and his stature as a reformer of American/Muslim relationships has fallen flat on its face.
4. The reader is given the following link, a detailed summary of the Obama Muslim Doctrine, written by reporters from al Jazeera . Click on this link and as you read, keep in mind that two years later, the Obama Doctrine as outlined in the alJazeera article has proven to be a dismal failure. Note that the article was written just 8 days after Obama's inauguration on Jan 20th, 2009.
5. Related to the above, Canada Free Press reported in October of 2008, the endorsement of Obama by al Jazeera. Here is the opening paragraph in that report:
Canada Free Press article By Cliff Kincaid Monday, October 20, 2008
Colin Powell’s predicted and expected endorsement of Barack Obama was transformed into big news by the pro-Obama media. But Arab propaganda channel Al-Jazeera’s intervention in the U.S. presidential contest is also extremely significant. Al-Jazeera, a mouthpiece for enemies of the United States, aired a Moammar Gadhafi speech praising Obama and followed with a story depicting supporters of Sarah Palin as white racist Christians. The channel is subsidized by the oil-rich Sunni Muslim plutocracy/dictatorship in Qatar.
Its Bush's fault; Its Obama's fault --- the two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
Headline: Amerian Voters Still Blame Bush for Economic Crisis.
We like Rasmussen, as you may know, but this headline simply does not reflect Scott Rasmussen's own questioning. The headline above comes from the following Rasmussen polling question:
1* Some people say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush Administration. Others say the problems are being caused more by the policies President Obama has put in place since taking office. Which point of view comes closest to your own?
We have highlighted key wording within the polling question. Of course, the larger question offers a choice, but the choice is not one of mirrored opposites. "Problems . . . which began under . . . Bush" is not the same as the same as "policies . . . Obama has put in place since taking office." Understand that in the later part of the question, one can agree or disagree as to whether Obama policy is to blame; one cannot disagree, however, with the fact that the recession began under the Bush Administration.
In reality, this question seems to embrace the fantasy that the two choices are mutually exclusive. They are not. There is absolutely nothing internally contradictory in making this statement: "While the problems and policies under the Bush administration contributed to the present recession, continuing problems are influenced in no small way by the Obama agenda."
In the final analysis, Bush approved nearly all spending bills that came to his desk out of the 110th Congress (the Democrat controlled congress for his last two years as president). And when the garbage hit the fan in 2008, Bush installed Henry Paulson as the sole administrator of TARP. That was more of a "mistake" than anyone can imagine. Suffice it to remind our readers that 24 trillion [yes, with a "t"] dollars has been shuffled through the TARP legislation without audit or accountability. We are all aware of the Obama extremes. In the three fiscal years under Obama, including the one currently in progress, Obama will have added nearly 5 trillion in accumulated annual debt. This does not include the cost of the billion dollar Stimulus and the 2009 Omnibus Bill, which was another half billion dollars. Those dollars are added to Bush debt because they occurred during his final fiscal year. Obama spent the money while Bush got the blame. Sweeeet. At any rate, both presidents share the blame.
That is the more accurate summary of current events. Will we ever see polling results on such a question?
Maybe, maybe not.
We like Rasmussen, as you may know, but this headline simply does not reflect Scott Rasmussen's own questioning. The headline above comes from the following Rasmussen polling question:
1* Some people say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush Administration. Others say the problems are being caused more by the policies President Obama has put in place since taking office. Which point of view comes closest to your own?
We have highlighted key wording within the polling question. Of course, the larger question offers a choice, but the choice is not one of mirrored opposites. "Problems . . . which began under . . . Bush" is not the same as the same as "policies . . . Obama has put in place since taking office." Understand that in the later part of the question, one can agree or disagree as to whether Obama policy is to blame; one cannot disagree, however, with the fact that the recession began under the Bush Administration.
In reality, this question seems to embrace the fantasy that the two choices are mutually exclusive. They are not. There is absolutely nothing internally contradictory in making this statement: "While the problems and policies under the Bush administration contributed to the present recession, continuing problems are influenced in no small way by the Obama agenda."
In the final analysis, Bush approved nearly all spending bills that came to his desk out of the 110th Congress (the Democrat controlled congress for his last two years as president). And when the garbage hit the fan in 2008, Bush installed Henry Paulson as the sole administrator of TARP. That was more of a "mistake" than anyone can imagine. Suffice it to remind our readers that 24 trillion [yes, with a "t"] dollars has been shuffled through the TARP legislation without audit or accountability. We are all aware of the Obama extremes. In the three fiscal years under Obama, including the one currently in progress, Obama will have added nearly 5 trillion in accumulated annual debt. This does not include the cost of the billion dollar Stimulus and the 2009 Omnibus Bill, which was another half billion dollars. Those dollars are added to Bush debt because they occurred during his final fiscal year. Obama spent the money while Bush got the blame. Sweeeet. At any rate, both presidents share the blame.
That is the more accurate summary of current events. Will we ever see polling results on such a question?
Maybe, maybe not.
33% of GOP do not want Palin as candidate - but what is the rest of the story??
From Rasmussen Reports, we have this -- and it is this very report [below] that is being used to help destroy Palin's run for the presidency. First, read the news from Rasmussen:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 81% of Likely GOP Primary Voters have a favorable opinion of Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Seventy-nine percent (79%) share a favorable opinion of Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, and 77% express positive feelings about another 2008 contender, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
These findings include 44% with Very Favorable opinions of Palin and Huckabee and 38% who feel that way about Romney. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Still, one-in-three likely primary voters (33%) say Palin is the frontrunner they would least like to see nominated. Twenty-three percent (23%) feel that way about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Fifteen percent (15%) say Romney is their least favorite of the leading candidates and 13% say the same of Huckabee.
*******
Now that we have the report fresh in mind, let me ask you this question: at what point in the report do we find out about Palin's negative numbers?
Answer: after we are told that she is running just 2 points behind Romney in over-all favorability and after it is reported that her "Very Favorable" number of 44% is a full 6 points ahead of Mitt Romney.
Look, we conservatives simply must stop taking reported facts and using them in the same biased manner as do the Liberals. This is a perfect example. The Rasmussen Report was actually very encouraging, if you are a Palin fan. But, to hear the talk, she is very much on the "outs." That is no more true than to believe that Obama is mounting a grand "come back" after getting his political butt stomped into the historical record books just a few weeks ago. Nonsense on both counts.
The conclusion in the MSM is that Palin is not in the game at all; that is what they want you to believe. Read that report again and tell me where, in those words, does anyone find evidence that she is not a front runner for the GOP nomination. The folks I talk to who do not want a Palin candidacy are much more concerned with her electability than with her qualification or presidential qualifites.
After Tuscon, it is clear that the Marxist Sterilized Media (MSM) has decided to use any and all occasions to humiliate and harm Palin. The murders in Tucson had nothing to do with Palin's midterm stategies (i.e. the Palin map), not one stinking thing, and that has been proven beyond doubt. The fact that the rumor of Palin's complicity was published in hardcare Marxist media as well as the WaPost and the NYTimes before the murder suspect was even charged, mush less interrogated, is proof of the maliciousness of the Obama Press and its determination to nullifiy Palin.
Understand this, the Marxist Media is after Palin because she has gotten under the skin of Obama. Barack has frequent meetings with media personnel, at times daily meetings. In fact, he met with the media, behind closed doors, before making his State of the Union address. To believe that campaign strategies and Sarah Palin are not a part of those meetings is to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Palin is white, female, politically astute, an innovator, and remains a huge political force after years of Left Wing assault. She has more financial worth than Obama, is far better looking, is a benefactor of an extensive alternative media, can deliver as exciting a speech as Obama, has proven herself in a debate forum, and makes no more gaffes that the Obamameister. She is principled and consistent, two very different traits as we compare her to Obama. Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a big spending Democrat Politician, as likely to throw his buds under the bus as next Democrat liberal.
Of course they hate her . . . . . . . but they seem incapable of "putting her away."
A brief history of the man who drafted our Declaration of Independence. Justic Kagan has no idea what an unalienable right is. Thomas did.
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped. [Read to the end, you'll see why]
At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginias legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginias legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Unemplyment rose by 52,000. Here is a brief explanation of what is going on. Things are slowly improving, that is the good news.
First time unemployment claims for benefits rose from 402,000 in last Thursday's report, to a startling 454,000 in today's report. These are folks who were working up until this past week. The winter weather is partially to blame, or so we are told, but, of course, the harsh weather has been in the forecast for some time. Economist had predicted 405,000 (we assume with the weather in mind) and were "surprised" at the current report.
In a typical 30 day month, at current unemployed rates, we add 1.8 million new benefactors to the unemployment rolls each and every months. We have been doing this for 20 months. The 9.4% percent unemployment rate is now the longest consecutive 9% rate in American history. The Carter recession, which Reagan inherited, ran 19 consecutive months in the 9% range. Under Obama, we may be looking at another four or five months of record numbers.
In the present circumstance, a lower or declining unemployment number, say from 9.8% to 9.4% is much more the result of people running out of benefits and/or simply giving up on their job search than for any other stated reason. If folks lose their benefits, they drop off the unemployment rolls making that number appear to have improved !! If they give up looking for a job, that, also, makes it look as if things are improving. In both cases, however, things have only gotten worse.
When it is all said and done, we need to add 140,000 jobs per week just to keep up with population growth. On top of that, we need to add another 240,000 jobs per to counter a very normal jobs attrition rate. Add these numbers together and we discover that we need a total of 380,000 jobs per week before the unemployment rolls are affected in a positive way.
Admittedly, the 380,000 is an estimate but it seems to be number a that works well with the current reality.
Midknight Review uses the 380,000 number as a baseline figure. It is measured against the weekly unemployment report. As soon as the unemployment number falls below 400,000 per week, we are getting close to reversing actual or real unemployment totals. Understand that while 9.4% of our work force is drawing unemployment benefits, somewhere between 15% and 17% are actually out of work.
We are not so biased that we cannot admit that the weekly numbers have improved from a year and a half ago. But we seem to be "stuck" at or around 420,000 newly unemployed per week. We have been at this level for well over a year. At the height of the recession, the weekly unemployed numbers were at 680,000.
As an aside, when Obama brags about "bringing those numbers down" from 680,000 or more per week -- at the height of the recession -- he is just kidding. The Stimulus was enacted on Feb 17 of 2009, but no monies were expended for more than six months. In other words, the market corrected itself without any help from the Feds and that is a concrete fact. But we digress.
Again, when these "improved numbers" are tied to a very consistent but high 9.3 % to 9.8% report, we do not have an improving jobs market. Rather, we have a depressed work force that is no longer looking for work or has run out of benefits.
Keep that in mind when you hear "a good report." It probably means next to nothing that is good. Understand that there are all kinds of numbers "out there." The ones that seem to count most are two: a downward and consistent unemployment number (we are talking about a three month trend ) and a weekly unemployment of approximately 380,000 on a weekly basis. When those two factors become part of the weekly report, we have actually turned the corner and headed in the right direction.
m
In a typical 30 day month, at current unemployed rates, we add 1.8 million new benefactors to the unemployment rolls each and every months. We have been doing this for 20 months. The 9.4% percent unemployment rate is now the longest consecutive 9% rate in American history. The Carter recession, which Reagan inherited, ran 19 consecutive months in the 9% range. Under Obama, we may be looking at another four or five months of record numbers.
Of course, we add jobs each and every month. This offsets the unemployment report. Currently, less than half of the weekly "unemployment" numbers are being reversed by adding jobs. In the first week of this year, for example, unemployment fell from 9.8% to 9.4% . New benefit applicants was set at 403,000 for the week while less than 280,000 jobs were added. Net job loss: 123,000 or an annual rate of 1.47 million people added to the unemployment totals for the year.
In the present circumstance, a lower or declining unemployment number, say from 9.8% to 9.4% is much more the result of people running out of benefits and/or simply giving up on their job search than for any other stated reason. If folks lose their benefits, they drop off the unemployment rolls making that number appear to have improved !! If they give up looking for a job, that, also, makes it look as if things are improving. In both cases, however, things have only gotten worse.
When it is all said and done, we need to add 140,000 jobs per week just to keep up with population growth. On top of that, we need to add another 240,000 jobs per to counter a very normal jobs attrition rate. Add these numbers together and we discover that we need a total of 380,000 jobs per week before the unemployment rolls are affected in a positive way.
Admittedly, the 380,000 is an estimate but it seems to be number a that works well with the current reality.
Midknight Review uses the 380,000 number as a baseline figure. It is measured against the weekly unemployment report. As soon as the unemployment number falls below 400,000 per week, we are getting close to reversing actual or real unemployment totals. Understand that while 9.4% of our work force is drawing unemployment benefits, somewhere between 15% and 17% are actually out of work.
We are not so biased that we cannot admit that the weekly numbers have improved from a year and a half ago. But we seem to be "stuck" at or around 420,000 newly unemployed per week. We have been at this level for well over a year. At the height of the recession, the weekly unemployed numbers were at 680,000.
As an aside, when Obama brags about "bringing those numbers down" from 680,000 or more per week -- at the height of the recession -- he is just kidding. The Stimulus was enacted on Feb 17 of 2009, but no monies were expended for more than six months. In other words, the market corrected itself without any help from the Feds and that is a concrete fact. But we digress.
Again, when these "improved numbers" are tied to a very consistent but high 9.3 % to 9.8% report, we do not have an improving jobs market. Rather, we have a depressed work force that is no longer looking for work or has run out of benefits.
Keep that in mind when you hear "a good report." It probably means next to nothing that is good. Understand that there are all kinds of numbers "out there." The ones that seem to count most are two: a downward and consistent unemployment number (we are talking about a three month trend ) and a weekly unemployment of approximately 380,000 on a weekly basis. When those two factors become part of the weekly report, we have actually turned the corner and headed in the right direction.
m
Obama's Middle East policy is about to go the way of the enemies of Radical Islam.
Note: we tried to publish a quickly written post in this article just before running out the door on our way to wrestling practice. I should know better. I already have more typos than I should allow. It does not help to get in a hurry and skip over or rush the review process. Apologies. This has been rewritten for grammar and content. ---- jds (1/28/2011).
Original but rewritten text:
Just a brief on what is happening in the Middle East, as we write this post. In short, it looks as if Obama's policy of sitting on his foreign policy hands is about to blow up in his (our) face. Understand that "sitting on his . . . hands" is not half the problem. What seems to be more the issue is this: as leader of the free world, Obama has no clue as to how to act in a world full of Freedom's enemies.
Syria, the Sudan, and Iran remain terrorist states in opposition to Israel and the United States.
The past week has seen a Radical Muslim (Hezbollah) takeover of Lebanon and, now, first reports have the "Egyptian dictatorship" [Actually, this is Yahoo terms; the Egyptian leader is an elected office] being driven from that country last night or early this morning, with radical Muslim groups poised to take over that government. As of this writing, the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet gotten involved, but it is feared that its ministers will call for involvement with the protesters.
Update: apparently, the presidential family left Egypt. The President, Hosni Mubarak, remains in the country doing the business of a president. Mubarak is as pro-West as Arab leadership gets. He is grooming his son to take his place, should that time come in the near future. The Egyptian presidency is an elected office, as mentioned above. But, it is a position held up by military strength and the use of force. Mubarak is in his fifth term, beginning with 1981. The Telegraph UK.co. is reporting that Mubarak fled the country for a few days, during the height of the student led riots, but returned some time yesterday.
When it is all said and done, we may be looking at the most serious developing crisis in Israel's history. Before Hezbollah took over Lebanon, last week, that country was considered "moderate" and pro-Western. If that has changed, the Middle East politic has changed in a bad way for the United States and Israel. If Egypt is added into the mix, the impact may prove to be disastrous for Western alliances.
Understand that Obama has not helped the situation. He has given more than a billion dollars in aid to Hamas, in Gaze. We are reminded of his Cairo speech, in which he framed Israel as an invading force and "occupier" of the West Bank. He has sat by, watching Iran become a nuclear power, without doing anything of consequence about that issue. You might argue that he has installed "sanctions" against that country to which we remind you of the 220 corporate exceptions to that rule of sanctions. He has repeatedly and publicly humiliated Israel leadership, and, to this day, has not set foot in Israel since winning the 2008 election.
We are looking at an explosive situation in the Middle East for which Obama's inexperience is proving to be more than a problem. Without Lebanon and, especially Egypt, the Middle East will become our most aggressive enemy.
Understand that by all accounts, Islam remains committed to the total abolition of the nation of Israel. And our president either has no clue, or is sitting on his hands with purposeful intent.
m
Original but rewritten text:
Just a brief on what is happening in the Middle East, as we write this post. In short, it looks as if Obama's policy of sitting on his foreign policy hands is about to blow up in his (our) face. Understand that "sitting on his . . . hands" is not half the problem. What seems to be more the issue is this: as leader of the free world, Obama has no clue as to how to act in a world full of Freedom's enemies.
Syria, the Sudan, and Iran remain terrorist states in opposition to Israel and the United States.
The past week has seen a Radical Muslim (Hezbollah) takeover of Lebanon and, now, first reports have the "Egyptian dictatorship" [Actually, this is Yahoo terms; the Egyptian leader is an elected office] being driven from that country last night or early this morning, with radical Muslim groups poised to take over that government. As of this writing, the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet gotten involved, but it is feared that its ministers will call for involvement with the protesters.
Update: apparently, the presidential family left Egypt. The President, Hosni Mubarak, remains in the country doing the business of a president. Mubarak is as pro-West as Arab leadership gets. He is grooming his son to take his place, should that time come in the near future. The Egyptian presidency is an elected office, as mentioned above. But, it is a position held up by military strength and the use of force. Mubarak is in his fifth term, beginning with 1981. The Telegraph UK.co. is reporting that Mubarak fled the country for a few days, during the height of the student led riots, but returned some time yesterday.
When it is all said and done, we may be looking at the most serious developing crisis in Israel's history. Before Hezbollah took over Lebanon, last week, that country was considered "moderate" and pro-Western. If that has changed, the Middle East politic has changed in a bad way for the United States and Israel. If Egypt is added into the mix, the impact may prove to be disastrous for Western alliances.
Understand that Obama has not helped the situation. He has given more than a billion dollars in aid to Hamas, in Gaze. We are reminded of his Cairo speech, in which he framed Israel as an invading force and "occupier" of the West Bank. He has sat by, watching Iran become a nuclear power, without doing anything of consequence about that issue. You might argue that he has installed "sanctions" against that country to which we remind you of the 220 corporate exceptions to that rule of sanctions. He has repeatedly and publicly humiliated Israel leadership, and, to this day, has not set foot in Israel since winning the 2008 election.
We are looking at an explosive situation in the Middle East for which Obama's inexperience is proving to be more than a problem. Without Lebanon and, especially Egypt, the Middle East will become our most aggressive enemy.
Understand that by all accounts, Islam remains committed to the total abolition of the nation of Israel. And our president either has no clue, or is sitting on his hands with purposeful intent.
m
Obama plagiarizes Geingrich's 2006 book title "Winning the Future" and that was his most original State of the Union idea.
On Originality"The future is ours to win" was a phrase used in Obama's speech last night and the word on the street is that this particular phrase is the new theme for the Administration as it begins its association with the 112th Congress. But the wording is not original with Bararck. Not at all. Just four years ago, Newt Gingrich published a best seller entitled Winning the Future.
And we have this statement written into the speech last night: “Let’s make sure what we’re cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.” Problem with this comment it that, it too, is not original for the sake of this State of the Union. The words come from a speech Obama made last month in North Carolina. (Understand that at this point, Obama is saying that spending or "investment" is that which drives the economy.)
He has spoken of "freezes" before, as well. His 5 year freeze on non-discretionary spending is similar to his two year freeze on non-discretionary spending, back in August of 2009, and his announced two year pay freeze on civilian federal workers last November. Let's not forget his 2010 State of the Union, in which Obama called for a 3 year freeze on budgetary spending. He obviously thinks this "preaches" well, but has shown no desire to actually get this done.
State of Obama or State of the Union?
His use of "I" is a hallmark of nearly all his speeches. In the State of the Union on Tuesday, we have this comparison:
| Word | Washington | Lincoln | Roosevelt | Kennedy | Reagan | GW Bush | Obama |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 8 | 46 | 28 | 41 | 43 | 35 | 67 |
(Source: the very interesting American Presidency Project out of the University of California, Santa Barbara)
Contradictions and Inconsistencies
I. On being bipartisan
In his speech, he made this point about the midterm elections and the future of American: "With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all . . ."
Two points: his use of the word "now" indicates that he is fully aware that "shared responsibility" was not a part of his administration during the first two years. Understand that the health care bill passed without the vote of a single Republican in either house of Congress. Obama met with House and Senate GOP leadership only three times in the first two years of his presidency, running rough shod over that party and the expressed will of the American people. "Now" that he actually has legislative opposition, he makes an appeal for bipartisanship.
II. On childish views of economic measurement
We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.
What we have here is an anecdotal declaration of a growing economy. The fact of the matter is quite different: economic growth is measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2009, there was virtually no growth in GDP and in 2010, the growth rate was 1.8 % over the course of year. Jobs are created and the nation is prospering when GDP percentages are at 2.5 and higher. That has not happened. Indeed, corporate profits are up and the Market is doing quite well for itself. But, unemployment remains at 9.4%, there were fewer new homes purchased last month than in a decade or more, bankruptcies are at a record high and foreclosures have set new records. Recovery? What stinking recovery??
III On day dreaming about the future
In the speech, he set a goal of 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015, just three model years from now. Not going to happen.
A second impossible goal is his intention to see 80% of this country's energy supply coming from green energy in its several forms by 2035. Again, an absolutely impossible idea. For starters, we do not have the infrastructure necessary for this to happen. We are talking about factories and machinery and trained workers. Workers an be trained and machinery can be made, but new factories in the numbers necessary to get this down will take 20 years to plan, permit and construct.
And here is the really bad news: The energy produced by green sources will cost the consumer 3 times current rates. Boone Pickens had to rescind a wind farm investment plan because of the more than expected expense, a decades long prospect of expenditure reimbursement, and the impossible regulatory and environmental permit process.
This energy goal is on the same plane as "I want world peace" or "I intend to be the most transparent president of all time. "
IV The ridiculous nature of his spending cut totals.
As relates to cuts, Obama spoke of cutting/saving $500,000 billion dollars over the course of the next ten years; that's 50 billion per year against an annual deficit of 1.3 trillion. Seriously, the reader needs to divide 50 billion by 1.3 trillion (that's 50,000,000,000 divided by 1,300, 000,000,000) to see just what a joke the Obama's suggestion really is.
V. His oil policy.
On one hand, his permitting policy is so restrictive, that drilling is nearly at a stand still in the Gulf. In last night's speech, he called for an end to oil subsidies. On the other hand, he has given 10 billion to Brazil for the expansion of their oil industry and has stood by as Viet Nam and China make deals with Cuba to drill for oil near its shores, less than 90 miles from Florida.
Final Comments.
In the end, this speech fell flat on its rhetorical face, offering nothing new in terms of ideas, full of contradictions and stressing impossible dreams as Obama sought to recast himself as the man in the middle, bringing opposing parties and peoples together.
Network news and print media are in full attack, asserting the popularity of the Obama speech. They have their surveys (ABC and CNN), taken immediately after the speech. In the ABC poll, 92% thought the speech was a wonderful event; CNN had similar numbers with more than 80% approving. Midknight Review believes the very opposite is true. Understand that "92" and "80" are absolutely impossible numbers when it comes to survey results. If true, these would be the highest presidential approval numbers of all time, and that includes anything Santa Clause might say.
We will make further comment on this by the end of the week, when legitimate polling firms including Rasmussen release their polling data regarding this State of the Union address. Know this, when the lie is as preposterous as this one, it is indicative of a "preemptive strike" in an effort to get ahead of the bad news that may follow the speech. We expect his improving numbers to experience a slowing, even a reversal, of his approval numbers and his Marxist media is working to influence that outcome. Look, if I thought the speech stunk, but I am being told that 90 people out of a 100 like the thing, I might conclude that I was wrong. . . . . . . . . that is what is going on here.
In the end, this speech makes it clear that the man has run out of ideas and catchy phraseology. If he cannot reclaim the magic of his 2008 oratorical dominance, he is in more elective trouble than one would have concluded just a few months ago.
Update: hey !! Did US News and World Report build off my idea in this article. Their article is great, but "palgiarism" was my idea early today. Of well. Such may just be my fantasy. Read their article entitled "Obama's State of the Union was Tantamount to Plagiarism."
n
The Governor of Hawaii says Obama's birth certificate is not in Hawaii. Listen to this revelation from a Hawaiian reporter and friend of the Governor.
Give the recorded discussion about a minute. The discussion is fascinating and thoroughly believable. This is not a couple of Right Wing wackos "birthers" but reporters having a broadcast jam session about a number of local topics including the birth issue . . . . . . . Conclusion: there really is no Hawaiian birth certificate and Press Secretary Gibbs is saying that it is the birthers who are "not rational."
mv
Update: Understand that there is not a single good reason for Obama to ignore a request for his birth certificate , not one. Every citizen in these United States is asked, from time to time, to produce this document. The real nut cases in this issue, are those who pretend that it is a "wacko" request to ask for one's birth certificate. It is not "wacko" to note that newspaper articles are NOT proof of birth, nor are any other 'official' documents.
Obama could embarrass us all by showing the document. Certainly, the Hawaiian Governor is a fan of the stranger in our White House and he couldn't find the thing. So, say what you will. Just understand, that in your refusal to do what the rest of us are required to do on occasion, it is you who is acting the part of the "wacko." Period.
Update: Well, it turns out that the reporter was lying about his contact with the Governor. It was not he [ the Governor] who spoke of the missing birth certificate. Turns out that the Governor has not been able to find the certificate. We know this from reporting last week. In this case, it was the two hospitals that say they have no such records. PERMALINK
mUnder
mv
Update: Understand that there is not a single good reason for Obama to ignore a request for his birth certificate , not one. Every citizen in these United States is asked, from time to time, to produce this document. The real nut cases in this issue, are those who pretend that it is a "wacko" request to ask for one's birth certificate. It is not "wacko" to note that newspaper articles are NOT proof of birth, nor are any other 'official' documents.
Obama could embarrass us all by showing the document. Certainly, the Hawaiian Governor is a fan of the stranger in our White House and he couldn't find the thing. So, say what you will. Just understand, that in your refusal to do what the rest of us are required to do on occasion, it is you who is acting the part of the "wacko." Period.
Update: Well, it turns out that the reporter was lying about his contact with the Governor. It was not he [ the Governor] who spoke of the missing birth certificate. Turns out that the Governor has not been able to find the certificate. We know this from reporting last week. In this case, it was the two hospitals that say they have no such records. PERMALINK
mUnder
Anyone know what "structured debt" is?
Use this single point as a litmus test of sorts as you listen to the financial solutions of the Obama, tonight, and the Republicans in their response.
Every single day of the year including holidays, the national debt increases by 4 billion dollars. Nothing can stop that accumulation of debt because it is the cost of interest we pay on our national debt. As you listen, divide the suggested "savings" by 4 billion per day, and that will give you a little idea as to the effectiveness of the so-called solution.
For example, Obama may call for a 15 billion dollar cut in spending which amounts to 4 days of additional debt. In other words, the suggestion amounts to no cut at all. so be careful of being "impressed" with the rhetorical sounds of "big numbers." In most cases, our structured debt is much much larger.
A second caution applies to the suggestion of "freezing discretionary spending." Our chart - from the CBO - suggests discretionary spending is 18 % of the our total annual bill. Some economist figure discretionary at 12 to 15 percent. Whatever the actual figure, the only category that is not structured debt, on the chart in this post, is discretionary spending. Understand that there are billions of dollars spent each year not included in the budget or on our chart above, as well, and that spending is not in view when folks start talking about cutting expenditures.
You have to be informed and our purpose for this blog is to inform within a very narrow informational window. We are not a news outlet. We don't care what Hollywood does, or what happens, generally, in the world of sports or if Obama is cheating or still using cocaine.
This article is an example of what we are most concerned about when it comes to the political climate of the day.
Understand that "invest" and "investment" and "jump start the economy" are all phrases that are talking about more and more spending. You will these phrases tonight.
Tonight we are going to hear promises of spending. Think before you applaud.
You might take a look at this site with regards to national finances: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Obama's approval numbers are definitely on the rise. Approval numbers are one thing. Vote count is often, quite anything matter.
We do not believe that reporting on the daily fluctuations of a running approval poll is of any serious benefit. As the reader may know, rather than give a daily accounting, we have moved to presenting a seven day average. We use the very well respected Rasmussen poll.
In that poll, as of today, Obama's approval number for the day is 52%, the highest single day number in more than a year and half. The seven day average is the number that marks out the presidential trend. And in the case of the Barack circumstance, the most recent seven day average (including today's numbers) stands at an even 50%, again, the highest average in well over a year. But let's put Obama's numbers into a real-time context, shall we?
Understand that approval numbers for congress after the New GOP victory in November have improved, as well. Also, the GOP leads Democrats in all 10 categories of congressional responsibilities, another long time first. Speaker Boehner has higher numbers than Nancy Pelosi and 53% of the population (likely voters) want ObamaCare repealed. When we talk about improving polling numbers, the GOP is as much a benefactor as is Obama.
It is a historical fact that the general populace always wants to believe in the president. When that does not happen, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Also, know that Obama's numbers have been effected by few factors: he and his party lost the midterms big time. Since then, Obama has been busy throwing people off the bus as fast as he can. His compromise with the GOP on tax reform worked well for him within the general population, but not at all with the Left Wing. They do not like the New Obama. Besides that ( the tax compromise with the Republicans) he has done nothing but talk and there has been little of that. The Tucson memorial speech was a big hit, even with Midknight Review (and we are talking about the speech, itself; nothing more). In summary, then, his numbers are up on the strength of a single piece of legislative compromise and one really good speech.
In other words, his approval numbers are on the rise when he sits and does next to nothing -- a slight overstatement, we know, but that is our story and we are sticking to it. Let's see what happens when he gets back to circumventing congress and installing his agenda without regard to the will of the people or their elected officials. Understand that that tactic will blow up in his face, if, indeed, he decides to go there. We are about to see just how committed he really is. He was willing to sell his party down the drain for the sake of his agenda. Is he willing to put is personal political survival on the line, as well , or will he choose the coward's way out and coast through the next two years?
m
m
In that poll, as of today, Obama's approval number for the day is 52%, the highest single day number in more than a year and half. The seven day average is the number that marks out the presidential trend. And in the case of the Barack circumstance, the most recent seven day average (including today's numbers) stands at an even 50%, again, the highest average in well over a year. But let's put Obama's numbers into a real-time context, shall we?
Understand that approval numbers for congress after the New GOP victory in November have improved, as well. Also, the GOP leads Democrats in all 10 categories of congressional responsibilities, another long time first. Speaker Boehner has higher numbers than Nancy Pelosi and 53% of the population (likely voters) want ObamaCare repealed. When we talk about improving polling numbers, the GOP is as much a benefactor as is Obama.
It is a historical fact that the general populace always wants to believe in the president. When that does not happen, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Also, know that Obama's numbers have been effected by few factors: he and his party lost the midterms big time. Since then, Obama has been busy throwing people off the bus as fast as he can. His compromise with the GOP on tax reform worked well for him within the general population, but not at all with the Left Wing. They do not like the New Obama. Besides that ( the tax compromise with the Republicans) he has done nothing but talk and there has been little of that. The Tucson memorial speech was a big hit, even with Midknight Review (and we are talking about the speech, itself; nothing more). In summary, then, his numbers are up on the strength of a single piece of legislative compromise and one really good speech.
In other words, his approval numbers are on the rise when he sits and does next to nothing -- a slight overstatement, we know, but that is our story and we are sticking to it. Let's see what happens when he gets back to circumventing congress and installing his agenda without regard to the will of the people or their elected officials. Understand that that tactic will blow up in his face, if, indeed, he decides to go there. We are about to see just how committed he really is. He was willing to sell his party down the drain for the sake of his agenda. Is he willing to put is personal political survival on the line, as well , or will he choose the coward's way out and coast through the next two years?
m
m
Some Justices will not attend State of the Union. Its happended many times in the past.
Who will not be in attendance at the State of the Union partisan presidential performance may be as much the news tonight, as anything Barack Obama has to say. We believe that Alito will be joined by Thomas and Scalia in absenting themselves from the annual political pep rally. There is a question as to whether Chief Justice Roberts will attend, but we believe that, in fact, he will be in attendance.
Part of this is in response to Obama's classless and partisan attack on the High Court for its January 25 Citizens United vs FEC decision, two days before his State of the Union speech, a decision that allowed for corporate and union speech to be protected by the the Constitution, opening the door to the expense of unlimited funding donations from these sources. Obama claimed that this decision would open the doors to foreign influences. While he pretended, for a brief time, to be concerned for Constitutional principles, Obama was actually upset because it allowed for big business to respond [read : "fight back"] to his constant vilification of the corporate world during all of 2009.
Last November 2, our midterm was funded in much the same manner as in the past. China or Russia did not take over influence against the United States and the Dems collected a third more money than the GOP, as usual . . . . . . . . . and Obama has still not revealed all the donors to his 2008 campaign; $400 million of the $800 collected by the Obama campaign remains off limit for the sake of electorial transparency.
Back to the attendance issue. Know that some of the justices will not be in attendance. They are tired of the catcalls and under-the-breath insults that never get the attention of the national media, not to mention Obama's potential for partisan slander against the High Court.
This is not the first time justices have not attended the speech. In 2000, none of the High Court was present. Last year, Justice Thomas was absent. Roberts predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, seldom attended this event. Ditto for recently retired John Paul Stevens who almost never attended the speech.
Point of post: there is precedent for justices skipping out on this speech. Justice Scalia is the most openly critical of the event. He has been quoted as saying, "You just sit there, looking stupid . . . . I don't know at what point that happened, but it has happened, and now you go and sit there like bumps on a log while applause lines cause one half of the Congress to leap up while [another line] causes the other half to leap up. It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity."
We fully agree.
Part of this is in response to Obama's classless and partisan attack on the High Court for its January 25 Citizens United vs FEC decision, two days before his State of the Union speech, a decision that allowed for corporate and union speech to be protected by the the Constitution, opening the door to the expense of unlimited funding donations from these sources. Obama claimed that this decision would open the doors to foreign influences. While he pretended, for a brief time, to be concerned for Constitutional principles, Obama was actually upset because it allowed for big business to respond [read : "fight back"] to his constant vilification of the corporate world during all of 2009.
Last November 2, our midterm was funded in much the same manner as in the past. China or Russia did not take over influence against the United States and the Dems collected a third more money than the GOP, as usual . . . . . . . . . and Obama has still not revealed all the donors to his 2008 campaign; $400 million of the $800 collected by the Obama campaign remains off limit for the sake of electorial transparency.
Back to the attendance issue. Know that some of the justices will not be in attendance. They are tired of the catcalls and under-the-breath insults that never get the attention of the national media, not to mention Obama's potential for partisan slander against the High Court.
This is not the first time justices have not attended the speech. In 2000, none of the High Court was present. Last year, Justice Thomas was absent. Roberts predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, seldom attended this event. Ditto for recently retired John Paul Stevens who almost never attended the speech.
Point of post: there is precedent for justices skipping out on this speech. Justice Scalia is the most openly critical of the event. He has been quoted as saying, "You just sit there, looking stupid . . . . I don't know at what point that happened, but it has happened, and now you go and sit there like bumps on a log while applause lines cause one half of the Congress to leap up while [another line] causes the other half to leap up. It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity."
We fully agree.
Most viewed and most followed stocks from Investors.com
Most followed stocks on subscribers' stock lists:
| Symbol | Price | Prc Chg | Volume | Vol % Chg |
| CSCO | $21.17 | 0.45 | 44,068,300 | 45% |
| MSFT | $28.38 | 0.36 | 52,055,800 | 3% |
| AAPL | $337.45 | 10.73 | 20,524,400 | 34% |
| GE | $20.04 | 0.30 | 98,547,300 | 70% |
| INTC | $21.24 | 0.42 | 82,375,500 | 53% |
Most viewed stocks over past 24 hours:
| Symbol | Price | Prc Chg | Volume | Vol % Chg |
| HUGH | $62.15 | 1.29 | 309,900 | 252% |
| CAB | $23.79 | 2.15 | 1,477,100 | 283% |
| AAPL | $337.45 | 10.73 | 20,524,400 | 34% |
| FFIV | $106.56 | 3.41 | 7,223,600 | 131% |
| SWKS | $29.19 | 0.00 | 5,956,400 | 61% |
Last years speech reviewed. Maybe he could deliever THAT State of the Union. Nothing much as has changed so all his "solutions" would still be good.
His words from last year in black; mine are in red.
One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. A year later this is still true.
Many businesses have shuttered. A year later this is still true.
Home values have declined. A year later this is still true.
Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. A year later this is still true.
for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder. A year later this is still true.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college. A year later this is still true.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. . . . I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. Yeh, right after he finishes off one of his evening parties at the White House. In 2009, there were 332 after hours gatherings.
The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work. Anyone believe this? When disappointed with life, not one of my kids or 13 grandkids has ever thought of writing a letter to the President. Give me a break.
They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't Don't look now, but Wall Street had precious little to do with the crisis. It was all about regulations and Affordable Housing quotas and the Communal notion that everyone deserved to be a home owner. Even Bush 43 bought into this garbage. Ask yourself this, " why has Wall Street recovered and the country is still in a mess?" Answer: well, it is not an answer but it is the point -- Wall Street has next to nothing to do with the health of main street.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. How did he come up with this "uncivility theme" a year before Tucson? Truth is, the libs have been busy branding the conservatives "uncivil" for as long as I can remember.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. First, while a relative few of the banks were "the bad guys" in all this, they did not cause the recession. That honor goes to Congress, with its lack of oversight and its demand that housing ownership be made available to those who could not read a contract or have the money to pay for a house . . . . and how did he do with this goal, anyway?
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. He's talking about TARP. 24 trillion dollars have been run through TARP. Did you know that? Didn't think so. Transparency? Give me a break. He has respond to 500 requests under the Freedom of Information Act while resisting 103,000 . . . during the first two years of his Administration.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. Not one tax bracket was cut. He is talking about rebates and we all paid taxes on those rebates. Understand, you do not pay income tax on a true tax cut. You pay income tax on INCOME, you ignorant.
We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. This tax cut amounted to about $500 real dollars. No big deal.
And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. Well, I don't think that is true, but if it is, he was going to raise taxes before the midterms swept the GOP back into power and they told him, "Oh, no you are not."
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year. Here's a news flash: in the district in which I coach, they are going to close down one of their two elementary schools, move the 7th and 8th grade from their middle school campus over to the high school, cut after school busing (the sports buses) and get ready for financial hell. Thanks Obama . . . . . . . for nothing.
That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.) What do you want to bet he says almost exactly the same thing tonight , Tuesday night, at the State of the Union?
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. Wow, that worked out well, didn't it.
I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. Wonder if he will use these words again, since he got such great applause out of the line, last year.
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products. And a year later we ask, how did this work out for everyone? When are we going to stop listening to this clown and demand that he actually do something?
And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.) So - a year later - he just hired Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Jobs and Competitiveness Council -- Immelt, the past CEO of GE who sent more jobs overseas than he created "right here in the United States of America." During his tenure at GE, he lost 34, 000 jobs here in the States while creating 25,000 . . . . . . . . . overseas. Again, Immelt is now Obama's main man for jobs creation. And the position Immelt holds is a parttime job.
They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.) Think he will dare to use the same language in this year's State of the Union. I do.
**************
I could go on and on, taking quotes out of last years speech and making comment. But you get the point. Turns out last year's speech was all blow. Oh, they passed ObamaCare, but it will take the next 3 years to finish writing the 100,000 pages of new regulations for that bill. Over 250 corporations and county governments have demanded waivers because they cannot afford to be part of this new and inexpensive health insurance scam. Unemployment is on a straight line. There are more bankruptcies today than a year ago. There are more foreclosures than a year ago. We have actually lost another 3/4 million jobs since that last speech.
I will read the text of this year's State of the Union address because I report on such things, but I have no intentions of listening to his performance. It means nothing and we have last year's speech to prove the point.
One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. A year later this is still true.
Many businesses have shuttered. A year later this is still true.
Home values have declined. A year later this is still true.
Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. A year later this is still true.
for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder. A year later this is still true.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college. A year later this is still true.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. . . . I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. Yeh, right after he finishes off one of his evening parties at the White House. In 2009, there were 332 after hours gatherings.
The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work. Anyone believe this? When disappointed with life, not one of my kids or 13 grandkids has ever thought of writing a letter to the President. Give me a break.
They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't Don't look now, but Wall Street had precious little to do with the crisis. It was all about regulations and Affordable Housing quotas and the Communal notion that everyone deserved to be a home owner. Even Bush 43 bought into this garbage. Ask yourself this, " why has Wall Street recovered and the country is still in a mess?" Answer: well, it is not an answer but it is the point -- Wall Street has next to nothing to do with the health of main street.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. How did he come up with this "uncivility theme" a year before Tucson? Truth is, the libs have been busy branding the conservatives "uncivil" for as long as I can remember.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. First, while a relative few of the banks were "the bad guys" in all this, they did not cause the recession. That honor goes to Congress, with its lack of oversight and its demand that housing ownership be made available to those who could not read a contract or have the money to pay for a house . . . . and how did he do with this goal, anyway?
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. He's talking about TARP. 24 trillion dollars have been run through TARP. Did you know that? Didn't think so. Transparency? Give me a break. He has respond to 500 requests under the Freedom of Information Act while resisting 103,000 . . . during the first two years of his Administration.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. Not one tax bracket was cut. He is talking about rebates and we all paid taxes on those rebates. Understand, you do not pay income tax on a true tax cut. You pay income tax on INCOME, you ignorant.
We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. This tax cut amounted to about $500 real dollars. No big deal.
And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. Well, I don't think that is true, but if it is, he was going to raise taxes before the midterms swept the GOP back into power and they told him, "Oh, no you are not."
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year. Here's a news flash: in the district in which I coach, they are going to close down one of their two elementary schools, move the 7th and 8th grade from their middle school campus over to the high school, cut after school busing (the sports buses) and get ready for financial hell. Thanks Obama . . . . . . . for nothing.
That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.) What do you want to bet he says almost exactly the same thing tonight , Tuesday night, at the State of the Union?
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. Wow, that worked out well, didn't it.
I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. Wonder if he will use these words again, since he got such great applause out of the line, last year.
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products. And a year later we ask, how did this work out for everyone? When are we going to stop listening to this clown and demand that he actually do something?
And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.) So - a year later - he just hired Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Jobs and Competitiveness Council -- Immelt, the past CEO of GE who sent more jobs overseas than he created "right here in the United States of America." During his tenure at GE, he lost 34, 000 jobs here in the States while creating 25,000 . . . . . . . . . overseas. Again, Immelt is now Obama's main man for jobs creation. And the position Immelt holds is a parttime job.
They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.) Think he will dare to use the same language in this year's State of the Union. I do.
**************
I could go on and on, taking quotes out of last years speech and making comment. But you get the point. Turns out last year's speech was all blow. Oh, they passed ObamaCare, but it will take the next 3 years to finish writing the 100,000 pages of new regulations for that bill. Over 250 corporations and county governments have demanded waivers because they cannot afford to be part of this new and inexpensive health insurance scam. Unemployment is on a straight line. There are more bankruptcies today than a year ago. There are more foreclosures than a year ago. We have actually lost another 3/4 million jobs since that last speech.
I will read the text of this year's State of the Union address because I report on such things, but I have no intentions of listening to his performance. It means nothing and we have last year's speech to prove the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)