It's My Party...

Mr. Obama: Please Stop Helping!

Ho, Ho, Hold the Phone!

A little Christmas cheer for your stocking! Note that the household income increase for Trump in three years is about five times what it was for Obama in eight years! Ho! Ho! Ho!

The Horse and the Sports Car: A Parable

An old farmer was stuck in the horse and buggy age. Whenever he wanted to go into town, which really wasn't that far away, he'd have to go out to the barn, hitch his ornery old horse, kicking and biting, to his buckboard, for a bumpy ride into town. Coming back, he'd have to unhitch the animal, with all the unpleasantness that involved, put away the harness and gear, and end the day exhausted.

One day, the farmer decided he'd had enough, and he bought himself a brand new, shiny red sports car. Now, a trip to town was ten minutes, round trip, and the farmer was exhilarated by the ride.

The mean, ornery old horse turned to his stablemates and said, "It was my policies that made this happen!"

Remember this story whenever a horse, or at least, a horse's behind, tries to take credit for something he not only didn't do, but couldn't do.

About Last Night (Flash Impressions from the State of the Union)

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Who was the President speaking to last night? Did it even appear as if he were addressing the newly elected Republican-majority congress? Or even the American people? Did anyone else get the sense that President Obama felt he was doing the elected officials before him a favor by showing up and gracing them with his presence? Did anyone else get the sense that the whole speech was nothing more than a Campaign-2016 primer?

And what planet does he reside on? Because after that little performance, I am more than ready to pack up all my things and head off into the delicious rose-colored world he clearly believes we live in. (Just imagine how many more acts of terrorism there would have been if not for President Obama and his brilliant foreign policy strategies).

I won’t invest a lot of time analyzing last night’s State of the Union address, but allow me to briefly throw together some flash observations:

-There really was nothing in this speech about the actual "state" of the union, save for the declaration that the "shadow of crisis"  - whatever that is - has apparently passed. However, the state of Obama's campaign persona remains very strong.

-Obama’s modus operandi was on full display: He says he will work with Republicans.... but has already promised to veto whatever they send him.

-He says he wants to put money back in the pockets of working people. But why take it out in the first place?

-The myth of women continuing to be victims of not receiving equal pay for equal work still breathes. It’s a wonder that corporations run by money-grubbing humans with penises aren’t hiring anything BUT women, seeing as they are all so attainable on the cheap.

-Why propose tax cuts for families with two working parents and not for those with stay-at-home parents?

-Like it or not, Mr. President,  the reduction in gas and oil prices is, in large part, the result of fracking. (This supply and demand thing really seems to confound him at times).

-A few nano-seconds were spent on foreign policy – mostly a self high-five on how well his strategies are breaking down the terrorists. (That sound you heard was the terrorists laughing their collective asses off).

-Obama says that Iran’s progression toward nuclear weapons has been halted, but it is entirely false. The November, 2013 agreement in no way keeps them from converting their already existing stockpile (one that has been steadily growing under Obama’s leadership) into a nuclear weapon.

-There was nothing on corporate tax reform…as companies continue to flee the nation with the highest corporate tax rates on the globe.

-Apparently, there still isn’t enough free stuff out there, so it is necessary to punish Americans once again by way of tax hikes on “the rich.”

-The President decried divisiveness across the political landscape – this coming from the man who, at one time or another, called Republicans “hostage-takers,” and “cowards.” I think he even called them terrorists. 

I’m sure there’s probably more I could touch upon, but I’ve got a clog in my bathroom sink to tend to – entirely more entertaining and fulfilling.

___

Potemkin Village People

Tweet du jour

On Obama's tan suit:

The audacity of taupe
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 28, 2014

Priceless!

Stargate DNC

Obama's symbiotic relationship with James "Serpenthead" Carville would serve him well during the upcoming slave rebellion.

Why Did Obamacare Pass? Because 'Math is Hard'

I heard something jarring on Fox News Sunday this week, that had me shaking my head. Mara Liasson (D-NPR), I think was trying to convey the administration's position on Obamacare, not necessarily her own:

"...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage."

Did you get that? "more people will end up paying less for coverage". Exactly how does that work out for us green eye shade types? For starters, the government, who doesn't trust you to make an intelligent or self enlightened position on buying light bulbs or toilets, doesn't think you can pick out your own insurance, so they've come up with a one-size-fits-all approach to coverage.

Single man? Elderly?? The government adds maternity, prenatal care and birth control to your new policy. Let's see a show of hands of all you who think that adding additional coverage will lower your insurance bill? Anyone?? Anyone at all??? We'll put these people in the column of "people paying more".

Well, how about those "millions of uninsured" O'care promised to cover? If they start paying anything at all, they're paying 'more', right? But, in order to subsidize these folk, who presumably couldn't afford it before now, someone is going to have to subsidize the difference, no? You can't add subsidies to millions of people currently without insurance without someone paying 'more'. Another addition to the column of "people paying more".

And what about that large group of uninsured who were so by choice? Those young, healthy individuals who made a rational decision, or even a gamble, if you will, that they would not need catastrophic insurance or perhaps any insurance at all? They are now forced to buy insurance they didn't want, or pay a fine. Thus we add them to the column of "people paying more".

In addition, how about the magnanimity of covering preexisting conditions? Any added costs there? You do realize the concept of an insurance pool, right? Enough healthy people or good drivers pay in enough, so that when any of them get sick or have an accident, that there is money to pay them, with enough left over to keep the doors open at the insurance company (so they can at least make the next payout). Insurance companies hire people called actuarials, to figure out out, of any average given number of people, how many develop cancer, broken bones or strep throats, fender benders and DUIs, as opposed to a larger number (more) who won''t, so that they can calculate the costs and set rates accordingly. Every person you add with a 'preexisting condition', throws that average off, and immediately raises the costs, which then have to be passed on to...everyone. If a cancer patient joins an insurance 'pool', paying a $200 a month premium and has a $2 million dollar a year medical bill, who picks up the difference? Oh, yeah...some people who are paying more. So, if you currently have a policy, covering other people's preexisting conditions, without qualification, will cost you "more".

Let's recap: if you're a single guy, an elderly man or woman, young adult, or anyone currently buying insurance, the odds are you're going to be paying more. The only people who would be paying less, are those few, who are currently insured, but still poor enough to qualify for subsidies, for which, as you know, all of the other suckers are paying...you guessed it...more. Funny how we don't hear a lot of success stories of people getting better coverage for less. I thought there'd be more of them?

Now when someone, (well, someone other than Barack "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" Obama), says that "...some people will pay more (but) more people will end up paying less for coverage", an honest person, taking this at face value, would probably assume that the speaker meant that the "more people who would pay less" was in comparison to "those who would pay more". But, could this be one of those "the meaning of 'is' is" moments that sneaky liberal and lying Democrats but I repeat myself) are known for? Could the "more people paying less" be totally unrelated to the number of more paying more? Given the track record of this administration, you tell me.

The Obama administration is counting (pun intended) on the innumeracy of the American public, ill served by decades of government education, added to (ditto) the innumeracy of the MSM, who are loathe to call Obama to account for even his most flagrant shortcomings, in order to sell this to the American public. Obama's Chief Financial Adviser, Malibu Barbie, once stated that "Math is hard". President Obama feeling as if that undercut the administration's position on all things numerical and blow his cover, admonished Barbie not to speak publicly of this again.

Ms. Barbie could not be reached for comment.


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR

More Papal Bull

"The Pope of Hope"
Original art work by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Random Thoughts

Listening to the Sunday shows this AM, heard what has to be the talking point to try to spin Obama's inept and ineffectual handling of the Syrian crisis. Twice, on Fox News Sunday, I heard Democrats talking about how Putin was "moving the ball" on Obama's Syria plan. Horse feathers! After rattling his rubber saber at Syria for the last year, drawing imaginary lines that he had no plan, intention or clue as to how to back up his empty rhetoric, Obama is not in charge, as his flunkies would like to have you believe.

To use a football analogy, they imply that the plan to deal with Syria was Obama's, the quarterback, and Putin is the running back to whom Obama handed the ball. Team effort, but Obama calls the shots. (Hard a hard time writing that with a straight face!) Putin is indeed moving the ball quickly, but more like Rick McKee's cartoon above. Or a fumble recovery by Putin, after Obama and Kerry fumbled the ball. And that's if you concede that Obama is even on the field. He may have more in common with the crazy fan in the end zone, wagging his foam finger, taking credit for how well "his" team is doing.

* * * * * * *
The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has cancelled a trip to the US, and the chance to be feted by Barack Obama, over the NSA spying worldwide. How many times in your lifetime have you heard of a head of state refusing to meet with or be honored with a state dinner by the putative Leader of the Free World? Again, if the crazy guy in the end zone, with his face painted in team colors, asks you out for a drink after the game, you have to think of your reputation if someone sees you with him!


* * * * * * *
There's a new app putting your favorite translation of the Bible on your smart phone. It's called You Version. It's about to reach 100 million installs according to them. Could this do for the Bible for this generation what Gutenberg did for his? Oh, and it's free...

* * * * * * *
Saw 'The Wolverine' last night. Not a bad movie, not a great movie. A little more nuanced than most comic book movies, yet it had a distinctive comic book feel to it. I could further enhance my geek cred by going into what was wrong with the movie, but why spoil the fun! In keeping with Marvel's penchant for a brief clip of coming attractions, the good news is, they're not making you wait for the absolute end of the credits here. For those of you who have the babysitter double parked, it has to do with an X-Men sequel, and the return of Professor X.

* * * * * * *
That's random enough for now. Got to see if I can rally my Niners to overcome their point deficit in the fourth quarter. Or maybe they could blame the deficit on Bill Walsh?

Cross posted at LCR

From Solyndra to Soccer Balls - Your Tax Dollars Keep Swirling the Bowl

Doug Powers points out that a portion of the $7 Billion boondoggle that Obama wants to spend on electrifying sub Saharan Africa, he wants to spend on... soccer balls.

Now, putting aside little questions like, "Where's he going to get the $7 Billion to pay for this scheme...out of his Czar and vacation budgets?, or is he going to borrow it from the Chinese? Or another quantitative easing that steals a little bit from every man, woman and child in America?", there's the question of efficiency. How many hydroelectric dams could you build for $7 Billion and expand the grid? And rather than tantalize the children with anemic little lights to read books we only assume they might have, that they can't be bothered to read during the daylight, why not buy books or hire teachers, when you can buy electrical generating soccer balls???

Obama deprives American schoolchildren from touring the White House because of the supposed effects of the budget sequestration, yet he proposes spending an additional $7 Billion dollars for the promise of humanitarian stunts and gimmicks? Give me a break!


For a little background on the technology behind the Solyndra soccer solution, here's a piece originally published Mar. 6, 2011:
sOccket to me!

...four Harvard students are betting that the popularity of soccer around the globe can help reduce the use of kerosene.

They came up with the idea for the sOccket, a soccer ball that generates and stores electricity during normal game play. The stored electricity in the ball can then be used to light an LED lamp, or charge a cellphone or battery.

“Soccer is something you will find in every African country,” one founder, Jessica Lin, told Green Inc. “People play for hours a day, so we thought, ‘Why not try to get a little more out of that energy?’ and that’s where the idea ultimately came from.”

...Early prototypes of the ball use an inductive coil mechanism similar to the technology found in shake-to-charge flashlights. The movement of the ball forces a magnet through a metal coil that “induces” voltage in the coil to generate electricity. For each 15 minutes of play, the ball can store enough energy to illuminate a small LED light for three hours, according to initial trials.

Now if we could only get that kind of performance out of our politicians!


Update: According to one source, the price off each sOccket ball is $99.

Cross posted at LCR.

NTSB: I-5 Bridge Collapse is Wake-up Call for Entire Country

NTSB says Washington state bridge collapse is wake-up call for entire country

The collapse of an Interstate highway bridge in northern Washington state is a wake-up call for the entire nation, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board says. Investigators need to find out what happened at the I-5 span 60 miles north of Seattle and if it could be repeated at similar bridges around the country, Debbie Hersman said Saturday.

"This is a really significant event and we need to learn from it, not just in Washington but around the country," Hersman said after taking a boat ride on the Skagit River below the dramatic scene where a truck bumped against the steel framework, collapsing the bridge and sending two vehicles and three people falling into the chilly water. "At the end of the day it's about preventing an accident like this," she said.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's Déjà vu all over again!". Doesn't this seem familiar somehow? Return with me to 2011. President Barack Hussein Obama:

"According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third. We’d have to cut transporting funding by a third. You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it? And there was a big hue and cry: How can this happen in America? Well, the National Society of Engineers, they’ve looked around and they give us a 'D' when it comes to infrastructure. Our roads, our bridges, our sewer systems are all deteriorating."

"We don’t even have a serious high-speed rail infrastructure in this country," Obama continued. "Our broadband lines are slower than places like South Korea. Well, so what, we cut transportation by another third, and what’s going to happen to America? We’re just going to have potholes everywhere? We’re just going to have bridges collapsing everywhere?"

And, of course, this was after the trillion dollars added to the budget in 2009 to shore up our infrastructure with those "shovel ready jobs" he admitted later weren't quite so "shovel ready", and an additional trillion dollars a year in the baseline budget for 2010 and 2011.

So, let's get the timeline straight:

*2007: A bridge collapses in Minnesota, which Obama blames on lack of federal spending. (Had he bothered to read the NTSB's report, he might have informed himself better.)

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending. “On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

* 2008: Candidate Barack Obama, Toledo OH:

"We'll create 2 million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools and bridges."

(Raise your hand if you remember Obama creating 2 million jobs.)

*2009: A trillion dollar stimulus is implemented, presumably to rebuild crumbling roads, schools and bridges.

*2010: Because of Baseline budgeting, the trillion dollars spent as "stimulus" in 2009 now becomes a part of the federal budget baseline. That means in every year that Obama has been in office, he has had an addition trillion dollars a yar to spend along with the trillions in debt he's racked up.

*2011: Another additional trillion dollars. Obama says we have to spend more to prevent crumbling bridges.


*2012: Another additional trillion dollars


*2013: Another additional trillion dollars

Five trillion additional dollars above what the Bush administration had to spend, plus trillions more in deficit spending, and now, Sacré Bleu! We need to wake up to the fact that our bridges are in need of repair! Where has this administration been for the last five years?

May I make a modest suggestion? We hire George Hussein Onyango Obama, the fellow who's living in a hut for less than twenty dollars a year, to inspect and repair all our bridges. We could maybe double his salary and throw in Obamacare. He could go around the country with a big wrench and tighten all the loose bolts he finds.

Some might say that he isn't competent to do the job. Well, that hasn't stopped his brother!

Cross posted at LCR.

This Was Your Best Shot?

by Andrew Roman

_______________

I’m disappointed as all hell in President Obama – and not for the reasons you might think. From the man who sumptuously positioned himself between two Greek columns at the dawn of the Hope-And-Change era promising fundamental transformation to this nation came one of the lamest attempts at political histrionics on Wednesday that I have seen in a long time.

What a letdown.

I was expecting so much more.

The anti-constitutional metrosexual from the great Stacker of Wheat who, in that teleprompted imperial voice of his, once told us that we were the ones we’d been waiting for fell painfully – embarrassingly - flat.

It was astonishingly weak. A real yawn.

This was the best he could do? Surrounding himself with children while signing a bunch of stupid, ill-conceived, do-nothing knee-jerk unconstitutional executive orders?

Really?

Frankly, the Obama of old - back when the promise of the post-stimulus age was still ahead of us, when smooches with the New Jersey governor didn’t seem possible, when all of us believed Justice John Roberts knew what a tax was - would have done it much better.  

After all, this was a watershed moment for him and his like-minded reactionary, guns-are-evil non-thinking confederates. He was executing a slew of orders to show the world that he was doing something – anything.

Childlike naivety appropriately requires actual children as props, I suppose.

But this wasn’t an Obama moment for the ages. There was nothing particularly memorable here. There were no Kodak moments. No foreign heads of state to bow down to. No anti-American Korean rapper to be seen with. No apologies for America to be made on foreign soil. No troop withdrawal dates to announce. No murders of American citizens to avoid addressing.

Nothing.

It was amateur hour.

Seriously, were there no "product of gun violence" wheelchair-bound kids available to be used as visual aids? Were there no wounded "drive-by shooting" children from the streets of a big city like, say, Chicago handy? No one on the Obama Propoganda Team could round up a nine year old amputee? Or the sibling of a murdered child? Or perhaps a kid blinded by gunfire requiring the help of an aide to read his or her heartfelt letter aloud? Grieving parents? Outraged actors? Maybe Steve Carrell could have been on stage with him, wheeling around pre-pubescent victims of assault weapon madness?

There's lame, and there's lame.

Remember when Obama could exploit with the best of them?

The President is slipping.

This is the man who invented the Office of President Elect.

This is what he came up with?

Pretty pathetic, Bam.

______________

Character: Twitter 140, Obama 0

Wouldn't it have been nice for Obama to have to answer all the questions tweeted to him, and not just those cherry picked ones he got?

H/T Smitty, The Other McCain

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate

President Obama made a curious statement today about the release of his birth certificate:

"We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do"

-Barack Obama

Doesn't have time for this silliness? So, when the Clinton campaign brought up the question three years ago, you had time for silliness, then? Or in 2009, when you became ostensibly the most powerful man on the planet, you couldn't delegate the job to some one who worked for you? A Birth Certificate Czar, maybe? How long would it have taken, actually?

"Have my press secretary get a copy of my birth certificate and release it to the press." 30 Seconds? Maybe another 30 seconds if he had to sign a form? Less time than a hole of golf, I should imagine. How many holes have you played since you took office, Barry? Thirteen hundred?

I don't have time for silliness. I need to appear on Oprah! And then, I have more fund raisers!

Yeah. Right!

More discussion at Memeorandum

(Video) Boys Scouts Boo Obama at the National Boy Scouts Jamboree

by the Left Coast Rebel

You know, they say --- when you have lost the Boy Scouts, you have lost America:


Gateway Pundit has context:

Barack Obama skipped the 100th Anniversary Boy Scout Jamboree this year. He went on “The View” instead.
But he did send the scouts at the jamboree a video.

They booed him.

Indeed.

And another point too - ponder just how Dear Leader-like the Obama Boy Scout speech on the screen is in the video - it's like something out of a dystopian science fiction film.

(hat tip Leslie Eastman at Temple of Mut) Cross posted to Left Coast Rebel.

Updated: Doug Powers writing at Malkin gives more context:

Every US president since William Howard Taft has served as the honorary president of the Boys Scouts of America. President Obama accepted his role as honorary president in March of last year. So as you know, when the 100th anniversary of the Boys Scouts came along late last month, Obama decided to… go on The View instead. Hey, when you’re down 14 points with women, an American institution like the Boy Scouts will just have to wait.

However, Obama did record a message that was broadcast to the 43,000 Boy Scouts in attendance at the National Jamboree in Virginia.

Editor's Note: Our own modest contribution was here.

Headline du jour

MO Says "No" to O

Obamacare rejected in Missouri 71 to 29.

When Life Hands You Electric Lemons...

...you're in the Age of Obama!


Edward Niedermeyer writing in the NYT: G.M.’s Electric Lemon

GENERAL MOTORS introduced America to the Chevrolet Volt at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show as a low-slung concept car that would someday be the future of motorized transportation. It would go 40 miles on battery power alone, promised G.M., after which it would create its own electricity with a gas engine. Three and a half years — and one government-assisted bankruptcy later — G.M. is bringing a Volt to market that makes good on those two promises. The problem is, well, everything else.

I heard Obama hawking the Volt today:

"This car doesn't use a sip of gas for forty miles and then keeps going after that!"

Nah! That's not misleading at all!

For starters, G.M.’s vision turned into a car that costs $41,000 before relevant tax breaks ... but after billions of dollars of government loans and grants for the Volt’s development and production. And instead of the sleek coupe of 2007, it looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius. It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt.

One of the annoying presumptions people make about electric cars is that somehow they don't "pollute". On battery power, it's not that they don't pollute, it's that they shift the pollution somewhere else. It doesn't come out your tailpipe, it comes out of a smokestack at the power station. And unless the electric cars are more efficient than their older gas powered brothers, it will require even more energy to be generated. And lugging that massive battery pack around can hardly be considered "efficient". And if your utility is like mine, the power for your car will be "charged" at the highest possible rate.

So, to recap, it's priced above its value, requiring more cash incentives from the government. It will still pollute the planet, just in a different place. Manufacturing and disposal of the batteries will produce higher levels of pollution. And electricity isn't free. I don't hear anyone talking about what the Volt will do to an average family's utility bill.

Windshield defrosting can be done with wires in the windshields. What is going to defrost your fingers and toes in the winter time...in North Dakota? An electric heater, if available is only going to reduce your "40 mile range" down and start you burning that premium gas that much sooner.

Maybe in another three years they'll have all the bugs worked out?

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus

Ein Volt: The People's Car

Because a leader should take an interest in the transportation of his subjects people!

Inspired in part by LCR's take on Government Motors

Update: A slightly newer version:


Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel