Nervous Democrat Senators Up for Re-election in 2014, Meet With Bamboozler-in-Chief at White House

Meanwhile...OJ's, er, Obama's hunt for the real liar continues!

Obama invited sixteen nervous Democrats up to the White House on Wednesday, to allay their concerns about Obamacare. More precisely, to allay their fears that Obamacare will cost them their jobs in 2014 if something isn't done. And while some may speculate that Obama was there to encourage them to stay the course, to embrace what is, in his dreams, a popular piece of legislation that has become the cornerstone of his 'legacy', I believe his encouragement took a slightly different form. In fact, I know it did.

You know how people say, "I'd like to be a fly on the wall during that conversation!"? We, at Proof Positive, had an actual fly on the wall. The transcript may not be word for word, as my English to Fly dictionary is a couple of decades out of date. (And you don't want to get me started on how Google Translate mucks it up!) The following is a very close approximation of what was said:

Obama: "Welcome to the White House, fellow Democrats! Point of order, we did not have you pass through the metal detectors on the way into the meeting, but we will be using them on the way out. Michelle has "dibs" on the silverware.

As many of you know, You're getting creamed in the polls. Obamacare is still just slightly more popular than Osama bin Laden, but, out at sea, his site is somewhat more accessible than ours.

I've spoken to Kathleen Sebelius, and she assures me that the healthcare.gov site will be fully operational, right after someone named "Lucifer" takes a gold medal on the "luge".

Now, we all know how the game is played. You've all sold your souls to the Democrat Party. If we tell you to jump, you ask "How high?" But, since you have elections coming up, particularly in a red or purple states, we know that you might have to at least give lip service to the beliefs of your constituents, even when it contradicts the policies you have voted for, sworn to uphold and that you may personally believe in. Here at Casa Blanca, we call that "bamboozling".

It is imperative that we take the House and hold the Senate in order to fully implement my second term agenda, whatever that is! Therefore I am sending you forth as my 'sleepers'. Even though I will know you march in lockstep with my agenda, I want you to go forth and pretend you disagree with me, not just that my agenda is making it hard for you to maintain your deception with your constituents.

I want you to become sixteen "Mavericks" - sixteen brave Democrats who are bold enough to stand against me on Obamacare...not of course, like in 2010 when the vote you cast for it actually mattered, but now, when you are up for reelection, it's 'Sic Semper Tyrannis!', or, something...

All these people being so upset about the lies we told them and millions of people losing their health coverage is just the sort of crisis our brother Rahm told us not to let go to waste! So, I want each of to come up with a different plan to "fix" Obamacare. Don't try anything organized, because then, people will expect it to work. Besides, the more disorganized you are, the more people will think, "Well, they're just being Democrats!"

A couple of you can call for some kind of a delay...hopefully long enough to get you past your next election, but if not, at least you can say you were "doing something'! Mary, stick with your "Let's make the promise good" legislation. The promise had nothing to do with the actual legislation and you'd practically have to repeal the whole ACA in order to make it work, so it's not going to go anywhere, but it sure sounds good!

The rest of you guys come up with meaningless reforms that haven't a snowball's chance in Hell of getting passed, and you'll be able to make a pretty convincing campaign mailer out of it. By making all the right noises, you'll be able to convince the folks back home that your...your... What's that thing called again, Joe?

Joe Biden: "Heart"

Obama: That's right! That your "heart" was in the right place! Just remember that it's not really lying unless they catch you, and sometimes even then you can spin your way out of it. Any questions? Comments??


Senators: "We love you Barry!"

Obama: "Of course you do. Franken, put the gravy boat back!"

At this point, the fly found some slightly rotten arugula in the White House pantry that had more collective appeal than sixteen Democat Senators, so the rest of the meeting is lost to history.


Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), this week introduced a bill called the "Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act." Ms. Landrieu had this to say about her proposed piece of legislation:

"When we passed the Affordable Care Act, we did so with the intention that if you liked your health plan, you could keep it. A promise was made and this legislation will ensure that this promise is kept."

Mary, Mary, Mary! Did you even read the freaking bill before you voted on it? No. So how did you have any idea what the intention of the law was? If you had read it and didn't understand all the big words, perhaps someone on your staff could have helped you with it. You may have bought the same big lie from Obama that your constituents did, about how "If you liked your plan or your doctor, you could keep them", but the language of the bill, incidentally, that part which you were responsible for understanding before you voted, clearly indicated that millions of people would lose their current health insurance, even if they "liked" it.

Our republic runs best on the balance and separation of powers. Blindly signing a bill whose consequences you did not understand, should disqualify you from any future elective office. Period.*

A couple of Senators are suggesting delays, either until the website is fixed or a year, like the small business mandate. Don't look for any organized opposition. The Dems have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. By shutting down the government rather than delaying or reforming the ACA, it makes it that much harder for them to admit the Republicans were right and then delay the very thing they fought tooth and nail to preserve.

Here's the thing to remember if your Democrat Senator or Representative starts posturing against Obamacare between now and the 201 election: Ask them two questions: "Did you vote for it?" and "Did you read the bill before you voted for it?" If the answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively, then you should believe everything they say, as much as "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period."



*Did you understand what I meant when I ended my argument with "Period."? That's how the American people understood Obama when he lied to their face.

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art
Cross posted at LCR

Obama: "We Take This Very Seriously"

What's that we should take seriously, Mr. President? Apparently, everything.

Cross posted at LCR.

President Strawman H. Bamboozler Doesn't Disappoint Us

President Strawman H. Bamboozler, standing outside the White House next to Tailgunner Joe the Bumbler Biden, had a few choice remarks after the defeat of his party's latest attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment. And, as is his usual custom, he created a strawman argument that no one in the world is making, in order to demonstrate just how "common sensical" he and his cohorts are. Like most good demagogues, it was very subtle:

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil.

Who exactly have you heard, Mr. President, since it is so "common", that "this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres"? I don't know of anyone anywhere who claims that any single piece of legislation would prevent "all" of anything. That's why laws are accompanied by the penalties that violations of those laws bring.

The most common argument, Mr. President, is that this legislation would not have prevented ANY of the massacres that supposedly necessitated and prompted its passage. You see the difference? We say, Mr. President, this bill would not have prevented any of the mass shootings you say prompted the law, you respond, of course the law won't prevent all mass shootings. Dishonesty comes to you as naturally as breathing, doesn't it, Mr. President?

They say if you want to know what a liberal is guilty of, just look to see what he accuses his opponents of doing:

"the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill...unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose..."

It is a shame that the United States of America is lead by a man of such low moral character, that he lies continually. It is a greater shame that, even as skillful a liar as he is, that so many of his followers believe him.

Obama will continue to use those who have suffered tragedies, as pawns in his political gamesmanship. He will continue to demagogue every issue he believes will help him to remake this country into something its founders never imagined. There's a verse in the Bible that Obama ought to consider:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

I wonder if Rev. "G*dd*mn America" Wright ever mentioned that verse in his hearing, in his twenty some odd years of pew warming?

Cross posted at LCR.

The Bamboozler-in-Chief's SOTU Tonight

Given Mr. Obama's penchant for recycling old speeches and old campaign promises, look for at least one reference to spending money on education, or at least on his fellow travelers in the teacher's union, as an "investment in the future". When he gets to this point, remind yourself that money spent is not always an "investment". Every time someone want to sell some big ticket item to my dear sainted mother, they would couch the expense in terms of "an investment". I remember one time, she told me she thought she was going to "invest" in new drapes. Now, I don't know about you, but of all the drapes, curtains and window coverings I have ever purchased, not one has ever produced a dividend over and above covering the windows I purchased them for.

The US Department of Education is one of the ugliest set of drapes you have ever seen. With a price tag of over 100 Billion dollars a year, hung upon the curtain rod of ever declining and failing test scores, if this were something you had to stare at every day, you would get rid of them in a heartbeat. Possibly burn them.

When Obama stands up once again, to tell you he wants to spend money we do not have, for full employment of his friends at the teachers' union, who obediently kick back a portion of those "investments" as contributions to the Democrat Party, because it is an "investment" in our country's future and necessary to turn the economy around, remember that every dime we spend on education, will take an entire generation to find itself into the workplace. Consider the billions upon billions spent since 1980 on the Department of Education: Did the generation that was supposed to benefit from that "investment" find themselves trained and prepared for the jobs of the late 20th and early 21st. centuries?

Beware! When Obama and his fellow Democrats speak of "investing" in the future, they think along the lines of balancing your risk from Enron with this up and coming new company called "Solyndra".

Caveat emptor.


Cross posted at LCR.

Obama Fires Back at His Critics

The White House finally released one (1) picture of Barack Obama supposedly shooting sheet, as he does "all the time". To be fair, the caption does say he is shooting "clay targets". Nothing says the targets are in any way "moving". (Note: Most skeet are not shot on the horizon, as the president appears to be aiming.)

By comparison, the president likes to golf and we have hundreds if not thousands of pictures of him golfing. Forgive my skepticism if one staged photograph does not reflect genuine interest in anything other than being tired of caught in yet another meaningless lie.

Update: Prudence (@dennygirltwo) Noticed the following:


Aug 4, the day Barry was supposedly shooting skeet, was a day Reuters reported him golfing, and then going to Camp David for a "quiet evening". Now, I guess it is theoretically possible for him to have done both, but I find it hard to imagine that he would spend his birthday ding something he enjoys and is evidently fairly god at, to rush over to Camp David to squeeze in a little noisy skeet shooting for his quiet evening. Especially since, if he does it at all, he probably sucks at it. He might have squeezed in a couple hands of Old Maid and a hockey game, too, but I doubt it.

Update II: I just saw the CBS Evening News, who reported the release of the picture uncritically, so there must not be anything to see here. Move along!

"You lie!" Another Bamboozler-in-Chief Moment from Barack Obama

Remember when Representative Joe Wilson yelled out "You lie!" to Obama, during his health care speech to Congress? I had my own "You lie!" moment during the president's speech last night.

When the president claimed to have "cut" 4 Trillion dollars from the budget, it was no longer a question of him spinning facts to try to put the best face on them, he was lying outright to the American people. To most normal people, a budget cut is actually that...a cut. If you budget $100 a week for groceries and you cut $5 from your budget, then you can only spend $95.

Obama was using the ultra deceptive, so called "baseline budgeting". You need to buy a car. You figure that maybe you can afford $30,000. But you look at a $300,000 Maserati and then decide on a $60,000 Humvee, but you go home and tell your significant other that you "saved" $240,000 by not buying the Maserati. So, now, not only have you actually spent twice as much as you can afford, but you figure you can spend part or all of that $240,000 "savings" on something else.

If anyone in the MSM had a backbone or could do simple math, they could ask the president one simple question: Mr. Obama: given your claim of 4 Trillion dollars in budget cuts, how much smaller is next year's budget actually going to be compared to this year's? Assuming, of course, that your friend Harry Reid still controls the Senate and might get off his duff to actually pass a budget next year?

Obama wouldn't be able to give a short, factual answer, because there are no real cuts. Obama projects higher spending every year for the next ten years. In the real world, where most people live, that means there are no cuts.

It really gives me no pleasure to call the president of the United States a liar. There is one very simple solution to this, however: Mr. Obama, stop lying!


Editor's note: You may have noticed our own resident snake oil salesman, the Bamboozler-in-Chief is doing extra duty as Barack Embalma. The economy is tough, he needed a second job!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Bamboozler-in-Chief At it Again!

Here's the latest ad that Obama "approved":


"The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing." -Wa Po

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that anyone would outsource jobs to China, says Barack. But, didn't Obama choose the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, to be the head of his Jobs Council, to be a close Business adviser? And hasn't GE been outsourcing jobs , shipping manufacturing and engineering and development jobs to China, too?

Other than rank hypocrisy, how is what Romney is accused of doing any different that what Obama's closest business adviser does regularly?

And the Washington Post's Fact Checker gives Obama's crew four "Pinocchios" for their dishonesty.

The claim that Romney outsourced jobs as governor is equally overblown.

This concerns Romney’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from contracting with companies that outsourced the state’s work to other countries. Lawmakers were especially concerned about a $160,000-a-month contract with Citigroup to operate a system of electronic food-stamp cards that included a customer phone service center in India.

Both the liberal editorial page of the Boston Globe and conservative editorial page of the Boston Herald urged Romney to veto the amendment, saying it would cost the state money. Romney agreed, saying the measure did not protect state jobs — the call center might have moved from India to another state — but “had the potential of costing our citizens a lot more money.” The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature did not override his veto, even though it overturned 117 others, suggesting that there was little real support for the measure.

When the food-stamp contract expired, the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance insisted that those jobs be returned to the United States. But they ended up in a call center based in Utah — just as Romney had predicted.

Outsourcing jobs to Utah. Perhaps if Obama is re-elected (God forbid), he could see about making Utah the 58th state?


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Bamboozler-in-Chief Takes Credit He Doesn't Deserve

Real shocker, eh? The essence of a good con, or so I'm told, is to include an element of truth, something the mark can identify as true, so that you build credibility for when you start lying through your teeth. So, in the Obama ad pictured above, the statement being made is entirely factual, and perhaps one of the biggest lies you'll hear all year.

The graphic says that US oil production is at an eight year high. The question they hope you do not ask, is "Was Obama responsible for any part of it?" I think I can answer that with an illustration: Oprah Winfrey and I have a combined net worth of over three billion dollars, the highest it's ever been. And, even though I suspect that my contribution to that is a mere rounding error in Ms. Winfrey's assets, it is similar to Mr. Obama's oil claims.

The bulk of the production on federal lands, where Mr. Obama had control, has actually decreased. The federal leases producing oil were developed under George Bush and even Bill Clinton. Obama's policies did not result in the "eight year high", but rather production on state and private lands that are not under Obama's control.

And even though production is at an eight year high, worldwide demand for oil has increased even faster. Had Obama not obstructed oil drilling in the Gulf, the extension of the Keystone pipeline, and continued the bans in ANWR, the nation would have been able to supply even more, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, would have helped to bring energy prices down.


Graphic via Roger Kimball And the renewable energy Obama touts in his ad? Heard this on the radio today:

A Canadian firm will receive up to $50 million in Obama Stimulus cash for a Nevada solar plant that hires two people. And, the energy produced at the plant costs three times as much as energy from natural gas.

Is Obama really the guy you want in control of the nation's finances for the next four years? He spends $50 Million on a project that creates energy at three times the cost of natural gas and creates two (2) whole jobs. Had Obama simply signed the papers for the Keystone XL pipeline, the initial estimate of 20,000 jobs would be created. The cost to the taxpayer? A 39 cent Bic pen.

If you ran your household the way Obama runs the country, exactly how long do you think it would last?



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

You can Trust Barack Obama... to be Barack Obama

Barack Obama, the Bamboozler-in-Chief, is going to try to tell you that you should not focus on the fact that most of us are worse off than we were four years ago, by telling us the the problem he "inherited" was far worse than he thought. Well imagine a fellow that decides to walk from one side of the continental United States to the other. He starts off in San Francisco, and by the time he gets to Denver, thinks to himself, "Wow. This is far longer than I thought it would be!"

But, at least, he'd have made it to Denver.

Now imagine Barack Obama starting off in San Francisco, going the wrong way, ending up in Hawaii, knocking off to play a few rounds of golf, and looking you in the eyes and telling you, "It was farther than I thought."

Obama said he'd cut the budget in half by the end of his first term, but made it tremendously larger instead. As a candidate, he promised to "go through the budget line by line" to eliminate waste and fraud. By my reckoning, he's played over 90 rounds of golf, but hasn't quite found the time to do the whole "line by line" thing. And he said he had cut millions of dollars from the budget, so that he could sound like a moderate politician, but the truth is, they were all phony cuts, and the Federal Budget is slated to continue to grow every year for the next ten years.

When next year's budget is bigger than this year's budget, normal people will tell you that's not a cut, but an increase. A bamboozler will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

The first two years of his presidency, Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. They had the power to pass any legislation they wanted, any remedy to the economy that they saw fit: health care reform (as opposed to health care insurance reform), minimum wage, or jobs bills and instead, funneled money to political supporters like Solyndra and failed solar companies, sent money overseas to build electric cars, and actively took measures to raise the price of oil, gas and electricity, instead of doing what was right for the country.

What on God's green earth makes you think the next two or four years will be any different under Obama?

Tips from his caddy??

Cross posted at LCR.

The Bamboozler-in-Chief Has Loopholes in His Credibility

I created the new Democrat mascot "hippocrat" for times such as these. Obama and the Democrats, up to and including my own dear brother (Bless his heart!) are talking about "subsidies" to the oil companies and doing away with them, as if that would do anything other than exacerbate the high price of gasoline and further slow an already weakened economy. First, a look at the weaselly word the Democrats use to describe the activity: "subsidize". The word subsidy has the connotation of one party giving money to another. If some entity of government "subsidizes" the arts, if may be through a grant to a symphony or a ballet company or just an artist who wants to photograph a crucifix in a jar of his own urine. A subsidy to any of these groups or individuals, implies that the government will transfer money to them out of their own coffers. Write them a check, if you will, to subsidize those activities.

Imagine, if you will now, an armed robber approaches you outside an ATM. He demands your watch, your wallet, your car keys and your cash, but tells you you can keep $20 of what you withdrew, because he wants to "subsidize" you getting back home. "What a nice guy," you think, "letting me keep part of my own money! So that's what a subsidy is!"

What Obama refers to as "subsidies" to the oil companies, are what most normal people call "business deductions" when it comes to nearly any other industry. And the laws that the legislators wrote to provide those "subsidies", possibly in exchange for campaign contributions, are then called "loopholes" by those who want to raise taxes on those same companies. (Or extort more "contributions" from them!)

First of all, note the social engineering aspect of it: If you perform certain activities of which we approve, they say, we will lower your taxes and let you keep more of the money you earn. So, Congress writes the law in such a way as to give you an incentive for certain types of expenditures and activities. Think of your home mortgage deduction. To encourage home ownership, Congress writes a law that enables you to keep more of the money you earn if you use some of it to purchase a house. In ObamaSpeak, this would be referred to as a "subsidy" to you, the homeowner, if he were at all consistent, and a "loophole" that allows you to get away with paying less than your "fair share". The fact that you would be chastised for doing exactly what they wrote the law to accomplish is referred to as "irony".

Obama and the Democrats want to create enough class envy so that you'll want to punish those nasty, rich oil companies by raising their taxes. And rest assured, taking away current, legitimate business deductions will effectively be raising the taxes oil companies pay.

"Good!", you might say. "Those SOBs earn way too much on the backs of the working stiff!" Only here's how it works in the real world, and Obama knows it. Taxes are a part of the cost of doing business. In order to open a business and stay in business, taxes are an expense, just like rent or salaries. In order for you to stay in business and make a profit, any profit at all, you have to charge more than your expenses. If your expenses go up, the cost of any goods or services you provide have to go up as well. So called "business taxes" are a hidden tax on everything you buy. That makes the oil company, and any other business, a tax collector for Mr. Obama. Every gallon of gasoline you buy at the pump, a percentage of which is taxes, (less any deductions), which goes to the government. And then, the dirty little secret is, that the government then taxes the retail price of the gasoline as well. So the higher the cost of a gallon of gas, inflated by increased taxation, the higher the revenue in state and federal sales taxes they collect. In other words, taxes on top of taxes. Double dipping. On the backs of the "working stiff".

The state and federal governments are already skimming an average of fifty cents a gallon in taxes. By comparison, towards the end of 2010, Exxon was making just a little over two cents a gallon on oil products here in the US, in profits. So, who's the one robbing you blind here? The guy taking two cents a gallon or the guy who's taking fifty cents a gallon and wants to take even more?

As has been pointed out before, gasoline taxes are regressive taxes. They hit the poor hardest. The Bamboozler-in-Chief rails against the oil companies as if somehow, raising their taxes and thus, the cost of gasoline, (and virtually everything else in the economy), wouldn't be anything other than kicking the poor while they're down. It's a cruel deception. But if the poor are struggling and relying on government assistance to survive, it does make them easier to control.

Back in 2009, Obama went on the record acknowledging that it is a "bad idea" to raise taxes during a recession. Unfortunately, that has not been enough to keep him from seeking new taxes and revenues from people in every tax bracket. The old campaign promise of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, unfortunately came with an expiration date. The administration that cannot stop its own rapacious spending is looking for more and more ways to feed their spending habits. Raising taxes on the oil companies directly, and you indirectly, is yet another in a long line of bad ideas. Raise your hand if you think you're not paying enough in taxes?

It's demagoguery. Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes, and the cost of everything you buy...and he wants you to thank him for it. Thank him, please, with an early retirement.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The False Dichotomy of the Bamboozler-in-Chief on Oil

Barack Obama, Bamboozler-in-Chief of the US, made a rather hinky statement about oil the other day. He posited a false dichotomy about oil being the "energy of the past" and alternative energy being the wave of the future. This is becoming part of his stump speech, as he elaborated on that talking point a few days later, trying to depict anyone who opposed his policies as "flat earthers".

Let's look at what he said, he called oil "the fuel of the past", as opposed to algae and electric cars and windmills and solar that he deems "the fuel of the future". But, isn't he omitting a rather large part of the equation? How about: The Present?

You know, algae might make a fine fuel someday, but when you go to fill up your car to get to work tomorrow, to go to the grocery store, to carpool the kids to school, to take the baby to the doctor, you can't fill up at the corner algae station, because there is none. If Barack could snap his fingers and put an algae powered car on every driveway in the nation, most of you would have to stay home, because there is no infrastructure to support it.

Those mean, nasty oil companies (more about them later) and their dealers have put up an awful lot of money to make sure that there's a gas station as convenient to you as possible, so you won't get stuck by the side of the road in downtown Cleveland or Left Wingnut, Wyoming, because you couldn't find a gas station. That infrastructure was not built overnight. And it did not come cheap, either.

And historically, even big breakthroughs in science did not take effect universally. People were still using kerosine lamps after Edison invented the light bulb. Many people still rode horses and horse drawn buggies after the automobile was invented. People were still riding trains after the Wright Brothers' invention made its first commercial flight. Ever heard of "Amtrak"? There are people today who take trains to cities where they could fly. Most times the things of the past have coexisted with newer technology for years and years. Some things are even more enduring and compete with new technology for a century or better.

The point is, that a) our need for a stable petroleum supply for both our manufacturing and energy needs is not going away any time soon. The monitor you're reading this on was made from petroleum products. The keyboard you use to type your nasty response, disagreeing with everything I say, is made largely from petroleum products.

b) The infrastructure to support electric, or algae, or hydrogen, or nuclear powered cars is not there yet, and for many people, won't be there for many years. You may be able to refuel your car's hydrogen fuel cell at the corner of Fifth and Main in the next five or ten years, but those people who use a tractor to clear the snow off their unpaved roads in the winter, will never see a hydrogen fuel cell for that old Ford 9N. Before we relegate any fuel "to the past", there must be something else to take its place. And we are not there yet.

Electric cars are still mostly playthings for the well to do. Worse yet for their prospect, is the fact that China is the primary source for acquiring the "rare earth" elements needed to make high tech batteries and devices. Even as you read this, the Chinese have backed off from selling us as much of the rare earths as we would like to buy. What if that source were cut off from us completely? What's "Plan 'B'"?

And a nation of electric cars and electric high speed trains (don't get me started on THAT one!), will require more and more electric capacity, not less. And every solar or wind powered facility needs a full fledged back up system for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, unless you had a very efficient storage system, which we do not currently (pun intended) possess. Yet, Obama and his EPA are shuttering coal fired plants left and right (mostly left), leaving our grid in a much more precarious position to provide for the needs of a growing economy. I guess his first step in bringing these goals to pass, was to make sure the economy wasn't growing!

But the only reason we’ve come this far as a nation is because we refuse to stand still. Because we put our faith in the future. Because we are inventors and builders and makers of things. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That’s who we are. That’s who we need to be right now.

After disparaging the past, he cites Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. We are still using Mr. Edison's lightbulb today, and many of us prefer it to the "CFL" (Catastrophic Failure Lamps; see also: Exploding Mercury Bombs). We may all be using LEDs someday, but for now, many people object to the price of LED bulbs and the environmental hazards of CFLs.

I bought an LED bulb just yesterday. I'm glad I didn't buy two! When I got it home, it didn't fit in the fixture I had purchased it for. Maybe one day, they come out with a different bulb or someone designs a different fixture and we all live happily ever after. But, that's not today.

Mr. President: I don't live in the past. I resent you trying to falsely paint everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant, particularly in light of that historically inaccurate tripe you included in that particular speech. I live in the present, where petroleum and petroleum byproducts fuel my transportation and provide my livelihood. There are millions of Americans just like me. You were not elected to bring about some sweeping change that would alter our future. You were elected to defend and uphold the Constitution. Last time I looked there was nothing in there about algae powered cars, LED lighting, solar power or universal health care.

Quit bragging about how much higher oil production has been during your administration, seeing as how oil production on federal lands has dropped and the increases are all in spite of your policies. Stop playing politics with America's energy security. Approve the Keystone pipeline. Facilitate drilling in the far northern, barren and desolate regions of ANWR.

Tell your hippie, environmentalist friends that it is essential to become energy independent to preserve our liberty, and that oil and coal are the energy of the present.

Cross posted at LCR.

Barack Obama: Bamboozler-in-Chief

Phony Greek columns, anyone?

Remember back to the 2008 campaign? Before Obama had had a chance to break any of his campaign promises (his largest accomplishment so far), he had a word he like to use in his stump speeches: "bamboozle". It's a perfectly good word, I've used it myself, but for those of you not familiar with the term, it means:

to deceive or get the better of (someone) by trickery, flattery, or the like; humbug; hoodwink (often followed by into ): They bamboozled us into joining the club. Synonyms: gyp, dupe, trick, cheat, swindle, defraud, flimflam, hoax, gull, rook; delude, mislead, fool.

If Abe Lincoln had known Obama, he might have said, "You can bamboozle all of the people some of the time, etc."

To take another point from Obama's "Let's Pretend I'm T.R." speech (Teddy Ruxpin?):

To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law...

Now, on the face of it, that might sound like the most responsible thing for a president to do in hard economic times. What about what some people might call "lies of omission"? Or what the late Paul Harvey might have called, "the rest of the story"...

The truth is, the president's imaginary "cuts" are scheduled to take place over the next ten years, so divide that "trillion dollars" by ten and the impact of the cuts become negligible. That is to say, they would be negligible if they were real cuts. They're not.

Obama's bold deficit reduction cuts are cuts in the rate of increase only. In other words, Obama is planning on spending more money next year than this year, but wants to, wait for it, bamboozle people into thinking otherwise.

I wish that just one member of the Washington Press Corps (BTW, not "corpse", Mr. Obama!), would have the balls to stand up and ask him,

Mr. Obama, you say you have signed a trillion dollars in spending cuts. Tell us, exactly how much smaller next year's Federal budget will be compared to this years?

Mr. President?? Beuller???

You and I both know that Obama would dance around the question, probably blame Bush and then make sure that reporter's invitations were revoked from any future campaign bus trips.

Shouldn't someone be bold enough to ask the question? Are there no heirs to Edward R. Murrow? Obama might like to play act that he is FDR or JFK, or Reagan or Truman or TR, or even pretend he is taking a responsible approach to the deficit. Someone needs to call him on it. The watchdog press has become Obama's lapdog. Or maybe one of those little purse dogs, like Paris Hilton carries. It's time for the fawning bootlickers of the MSM to grow a spine and a little self respect. They tossed partisan softballs to Obama in '08 and as a result, we got the worst, and least serious president in the history of the republic. The public needs an impartial look at all the candidates running for president before next November...including the incumbent.

Update : Instapundit has video of candidate Obama promising to cut unnecessary government programs (perhaps some enterprising young reporter could ask exactly which programs Obama has cut in the last three years?), stop living beyond our means (other than trillion dollar "stimulus" bills), cut profligate spending and promised a "Net Spending Cut" if he were president.

"We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget, line by line, page by page, (unless it interferes with my golf game), programs that don't work, we should cut."

- Barack Obama


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama: Cockamamie Bamboozler-In-Chief

"Cockamamie idea= straw man" Nowhere does Bush say that "the Executive branch does not need to obey the Constitution". I still can't believe this guy bamboozled enough people to get elected President! Note the diss on Bush from Obama AG nominee Eric Holder near the end of the video. Hat tip Gateway Pundit Cross posted at Say Anything