The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ and His Contribution to Our Booming Economy

On Monday, at the White House press briefing, there was a report on the nation's economy. (Video below) When questioned about the timing of the report, after the blustering bit of boasting last Friday by The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™, claiming responsibility for our growing economy.

"Coincidence", they said. Well, if there is one thing Leroy Jethro Gibbs has taught us is that there are no coincidences! The report torpedoed, sent to the bottom and scattered the wreckage of any such claims. May I draw your attention to Exhibit A: Small business optimism

Note the dotted blue line. Those are the trends of small business optimism under (forgive me for uttering the name) Barack Obama. See how dramatically they all jumped after the election. Technically, the Temp Agency President can claim the recovery started "during his administration", but it was primarily the last two months of his administration, after it was clear that the economic stranglehold B.O. represented was going away.

Next, note the trend in business investment. The dotted blue line is plummeting downward in each case, like a SCUD missile over Tel Aviv.

In each case it is a nearly 90 degree pivot upward. Like Michelle on a beeline to a taco. Note, too, that the projection was going to "zero" or negative numbers.

Next chart is "Capital goods orders", with the dotted blue line trending down like Colin Kaepernick jersey sales at the NYC policeman's ball.

Again, check out the dotted blue line. That was the economic trend under the Temp Agengy POTUS. Nothing to write home to mother about.

The next chart is "business conditions". Although the trend was above the low point just prior to the election, the actual results went much higher than the trend. Speaking of "higher", maybe The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ benefited from some sort of chemically induced enhancement before speaking of his contributions to the current economy?

The next is new business applications, where for once, the trend was going upward. Still, the increase after the election looks like Air Force One taking off the trending runway.

Blue collar job growth:

Growth of private, nonresidential investment, as projected by CBO:

If you've got twenty minutes or so, the video is below. You can count how many times the presenter, in so many words said that anyone who would state the today's growth is in any way an "extension" of the policies or trends that went before is a gibbering, delusional lunatic...but, said in a nicer, more polite fashion.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ on Ukraine, Syria & the Economy, Part Deux (Redux)

I must declare a temporary pause in the "Obama Free Zone". This was originally posted August 29, 2014. As liberals are currently taking to their fainting couches over the very idea that Donald Trump might somehow validate Russia's claim to Crimea, a little reminder of the inactivity, failure to meet the international security commitments that characterized President Lead From Behind.

"Next week, I'll be in Europe to coordinate with our closest allies and partners. In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO allies. At the NATO summit in the United Kingdom, we'll focus on the additional steps we can take to ensure the alliance remains prepared for any challenge."

Unwavering commitment? Check.

"Our meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will be another opportunity for our alliance to continue our partnership with Ukraine, and I look forward to reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the United States to Ukraine and its people when I welcome President Poroshenko to the White House next month."

"Partnership"? Check.

"...Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are. And we take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, and that includes the smallest NATO member, as well as the largest NATO member."

"...and take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously" (Having trouble suppressing a giggle here!) Check.

Let me see...unwavering commitment to our allies and "partners", taking our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, then why in the Hell haven't you grown a backbone and done something about the incursions into Crimea, which everyone has apparently already ceded to the Russians, and the continuing invasion of the Ukraine, which you will not call by its proper name?

Didn't we already have a "commitment" to the Ukraine, if not a signatory of NATO?

Let me remind you, Mr. President, since apparently golf clears empties the mind, from wiki:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control. The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.

So, because it was only a "memorandum" and not a treaty, the "assurances of security" are null and void? What happened to "unwavering commitment"? Partnership"?? Taking our commitments to defend each other very seriously???

And, of course, since it is Barack Obama, it gets worse!

As a newly minted Senator, Barack Obama pushed to disarm the Ukraine of not only its nuclear arsenal, but conventional weapons as well. Why would they need them? They have the US and Great Britain guaranteeing their security and territorial integrity!

Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine

* Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
* Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine
* The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact

And now, the man who helped disarm the Ukraine is in no hurry to ship them any arms with which they could defend themselves, after broaching the promise to keep them and their territory secure.

Barack Obama: The gift that keeps on giving.

KaBoom!

It's been about a week since The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ decided that the best way to commemorate the 13th anniversary of 9/11, was a "day of service" at a place called "KaBoom".


We applaud President Selfie for his sensitivity. /sarc

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ on Ukraine, Syria & the Economy, Part Deux

"Next week, I'll be in Europe to coordinate with our closest allies and partners. In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO allies. At the NATO summit in the United Kingdom, we'll focus on the additional steps we can take to ensure the alliance remains prepared for any challenge."

Unwavering commitment? Check.

"Our meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will be another opportunity for our alliance to continue our partnership with Ukraine, and I look forward to reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the United States to Ukraine and its people when I welcome President Poroshenko to the White House next month."

"Partnership"? Check.

"...Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are. And we take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, and that includes the smallest NATO member, as well as the largest NATO member."

"...and take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously" (Having trouble suppressing a giggle here!) Check.

Let me see...unwavering commitment to our allies and "partners", taking our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, then why in the Hell haven't you grown a backbone and done something about the incursions into Crimea, which everyone has apparently already ceded to the Russians, and the continuing invasion of the Ukraine, which you will not call by its proper name?

Didn't we already have a "commitment" to the Ukraine, if not a signatory of NATO?

Let me remind you, Mr. President, since apparently golf clears empties the mind, from wiki:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control. The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.

So, because it was only a "memorandum" and not a treaty, the "assurances of security" are null and void? What happened to "unwavering commitment"? Partnership"?? Taking our commitments to defend each other very seriously???

And, of course, since it is Barack Obama, it gets worse!

As a newly minted Senator, Barack Obama pushed to disarm the Ukraine of not only its nuclear arsenal, but conventional weapons as well. Why would they need them? They have the US and Great Britain guaranteeing their security and territorial integrity!

Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine

* Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
* Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine
* The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact

And now, the man who helped disarm the Ukraine is in no hurry to ship them any arms with which they could defend themselves, after broaching the promise to keep them and their territory secure.

Barack Obama: The gift that keeps on giving.



Cross posted at LCR

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ on Ukraine, Syria & the Economy

Our peerless Narcissist-in-Chief made a few remarks today:

Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq, to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected...our core priority right now is just to make sure that our folks are safe...

The president is focused. Got it!

It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as commander in chief to protect the American people. And that requires me to act fast based on information I receive if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened.

You mean like you did in Benghazi?? Surely I am not the only one to have Benghazi come to mind while the Poseur-in-Chief preens mindlessly about a "sacred duty" to "act fast based on information I receive if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened."

Again, Mr. President, what exactly did you do Sept. 11th, 2011? Did you not say, Mr. President,

"... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

-Barack Obama, Oct. 26, 2012


What orders did you give and to whom? Were they carried out? If not, why not? And if not, what were the consequences of refusing to carry out a direct order from the President of the United States? Was this person fired? Disciplined in any way??

Based upon your performance in office, or lack thereof, what makes you think your remarks today have the slightest bit of credibility?

Along that same line, maybe you should go back to letting Michelle pick out your suits for you?

Cross posted at LCR

President Selfie: Hopelessly Delusional, Cravenly Dishonest or Mind Numbingly Incompetent?

President Obama made a statement the other day in response to a question about what Mitt Romney had said in the presidential debates about a possible Russia threat. At the time, Obama cavalierly dismissed it as living in the past.

"The 80's called. They want their foreign policy back!"

He doubled down on that stupidity in his reply:

"Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness"

Weakness? Really?? Was Germany in 1939 merely a "regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness"? BTW, Mr. President, in case you were on vacation at the time, Russia did more than merely threaten her neighbors, she invaded one and annexed it with nary a shot fired. And as far as being merely a "regional power", exactly how many nukes and ICBMs does this "regional power" possess?

Prior to WWI, Archduke Ferdinand was the leader of a "regional power", whose assassination sparked a global conflict. Some of the "neighbors" the current regional power of Russia might be threatening, are members of NATO. The US has signed treaties with them, that we will defend them the same as if the US were attacked. To quote from their website:

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Now, you can debate all day long whether or not making alliances with various allies is the wisest course to take, or whether we will pursue this course in the future, but are we going to run away from these treaties we have already signed, as Obama has done with the agreements to guarantee the sovereignty and defense of the Ukraine?

The White House is making a big deal out of the fact that the last phone between Putin and Obama was initiated by Putin. Really? This is not because of any weakness. Putin is the kind of guy who, when he shakes your hand, you'd do best to count your fingers afterwards. He is seeking to consolidate his gains and perhaps gauge when the next bit of Russian adventurism might most effectively and efficiently take place.

Barack "President Selfie" Obama and John "Magic Hat" Kerry try to portray Russian acts of aggression as being "weak" and "old fashioned". Perhaps, if either had spent a significant amount of time in the military, they might have learned that the aggressor in a war is not "weak", and war, rather than being somehow a uniquely 19th century phenomenon or as old fashioned as last year's bicycle spandex, is historically an integral part of the human condition.

Someone had best remind The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™, that part of his job is Commander-in-Chief, and to explain to him everything that goes along with that responsibility. If you can ever get him off the 18th green...


BTW, the headline does not preclude the possibility of a combination of all three.

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Obama: "We’re Going to Stand Firm in our Unwavering Support for Ukraine"

We’ll continue to make clear to Russia that further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world. The international community will continue to stand together to oppose any violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and continued Russian military intervention in Ukraine will only deepen Russia’s diplomatic isolation and exact a greater toll on the Russian economy.

President Obama, the Jar Jar Binks of 21st Century diplomacy, has assured the Ukrainian people that they have his "unwavering support". If any of you doubt Obama's resolve, just look at how he dealt with Assad of Syria. Assad was murdering children with poison gas. Obama made it "clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use", calling it "a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war... If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons."

If I may quote myself: "Got that? Assad is a dictator committing atrocities, killing children with poison gas, committing crimes against humanity we will not tolerate, so, we must not fail to act."

But, we didn't. Not even a pin prick. Will our "unwavering support" for the Ukraine be any firmer than our ephemeral resolve to stop a murdering dictator, killing children with chemical weapons? Vladimir Putin stepped into the Syrian debacle and gave our toothless, Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ an excuse to do nothing and he took it gladly. Then he went on vacation. Again.

"isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world" Diminish Russia's place while it increases its territory and resources? His carrot is larger than your stick, Mr. President. It's not that your words aren't pretty, Mr. President, it's that no one believes you when you say them.

"If you like your peninsula, people of the Ukraine, you can keep it!"

I don't know how many in the US are willing to start a shooting war to kick Russia out of the Ukraine, but unless that is at least an option, I don't see how Obama has a prayer of using "diplomatic" or economic means to do so.

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Obama Lies About Keystone (Again)

I don't know how many people caught it, but the latest lame public excuse Barack the Pathetic put up about the many delays in approving the Keystone pipeline was:

“But these are how we make these decisions.”

No. They're. Not.

For those of you just joining the program, or have been in a coma for the last five years of the Obama administration, Obama has been dithering and delaying the very simple decision of permitting the Keystone pipeline to extend between the United States and Canada. Or, more precisely, the extension of the Keystone pipeline. As we noted here (A Tale of Two Pipelines) , the Keystone XL is an extension of the original Keystone pipeline, built in 2009 after receiving approval from the Bush administration, in 2008, to proceed. That phase of the pipeline was completed in June 2010.

There is no indication that it took so much as a year to get that pipeline approved, much less having the president ignore environmental study after study which found nothing to bar it.

So, if the Bush (admittedly more competent) administration could get approval in less than a year, what does Obama the Bumbler mean by

“But these are how we make these decisions"?

Well, he certainly can't mean the American people or even the American government, because both acted more quickly the first time. The only way to find even a kernel of truth in what he said, is to parse the word "we". If by "we", he means "craven, spineless politicians enthralled and beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists"...maybe.

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Gets Spanked on Syrian Foreign Policy

Many characters in contemporary literature and pop culture have a catch phrase. "I'll be back", intoned the Terminator. "Dy-no-mite", quipped Jimmie Walker. "Whatchu talkin' about Willis?" from the late, 'cute as a bug' Gary Coleman. What was missing from Barack Obama's clear as mud dissertation on American foreign policy a couple of nights ago, was his catch phrase, "Let me be clear".

He came close several times. He talked about making "clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use" and that the "targeted strike to achieve a clear objective". He also wanted to make it clear, despite his Secretary of States pronouncements a few days earlier, that "The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks." This is clearly in response to John Kerry telling us that our military response would be "incredibly small". Well, that's perfectly clear! Incredibly small, yet larger than a pin prick. Got it! Moving right along...

Obama made the very emotional case about a murderous tyrant.

...Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits — a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war."

Gosh. Who wouldn't be moved by that??

...When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people — to those children — is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security. Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.

Got that? Assad is a dictator committing atrocities, killing children with poison gas, committing crimes against humanity we will not tolerate, so, we must not fail to act.


Enter Vladimir Putin, who takes an offhand remark by Sec State Kerry, and comes riding over the hill, like the cavalry in a John Wayne western, to save Obama from his own careless talk. Yesterday's truth: Assad is evil, kills children and must die. Today's truth: We can negotiate with him, with our friend Putin, even if that keeps a dictator committing atrocities, killing children with poison gas, committing crimes against humanity, in power.

Obama "acted stupidly" by declaring a red line in Syria that he either had not thought through the consequences or was not prepared to back up, or both. Historically, the words and warnings of the Leader of the Free World carry a lot of weight. But then, historically, American presidents didn't make threats they were not prepared to back up.

And now, Vladimir Putin has rescued the impotent Obama from his toothless threats, and the only cost was a further erosion of American prestige in the world, and a guaranteed safe haven for a murderous tyrant who commits atrocities by gassing children to death.


Any way we can nominate this guy for a second Peace Prize?

Cross posted at LCR

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Visits The View...Again

Gasoline prices are high. World economies are crumbling. Unemployment is unacceptably high, with no end in sight. Iran may be on the brink of having nuclear capability. Israel may be on the brink of war with Iran. North Korea is developing ICBMs. Chinese dissidents are being turned away from our embassy. And Barry's poll numbers may be slipping among women.

What does the Leader of the Free World do? He goes on The View. To discuss how he's making gay marriage the central point in his re-election bid.

"This is going to be a big contrast in the campaign..."

Well, it is after all, all about him! It is much more important (to Barry) to shore up his poll numbers among women, by going on The View, than anything else that might be on his plate, right?. Mitt Romney outpolls him among women, not just Republican women, even after the Democrats' poorly manufactured hit piece, the so called 'GOP war on women'. (Maybe if Barry's allies on the Left would stop attacking Ann Romney and comparing her to Hitler, he could spend less time on The View and more time back on the golf course?)

This is the Obama's fourth appearance on "The View" -- his second since taking up residence in the White House.

Fourth? I knew about the time POTUS, the honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, blew off the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts to be on the View. It seems that Barry consults with Whoopi Goldberg more than some of his cabinet members and generals in an active shooting war.

Can you think of a single nation on the planet, other than Venezuela, (where his buddy, the dictator Hugo Chavez rules with an iron fist), where Obama has actually improved relationships with the US, or made the world a safer place for democracy and freedom? So much for the world "loving us" after we got rid of the "cowboy Bush"! And yet the Commander-in-Chief of the last remaining super power on the planet (although, if Barry gets his "flexibility", perhaps not for long!), will not focus on world stability or the crumbling world economy or the lackluster American economy, but rather chooses to focus on whether American homosexuals should have to settle for civil unions instead of changing the definition of marriage.

How about a really bold move, Mr. President? Why not tell the women of The View that you are negotiating with the Taliban (or Tollybon) to take over Afghanistan after we pull out? You remember the Taliban, don't you ladies? They forbid young girls from going to school, sometimes maiming them, or throwing acid on them if they are so bold as to try. The "Tollybon" subjugate women and best of all, Mr. President, tell the ladies what the Taliban does to homosexuals. All those newly married homosexuals can honeymoon in Afghanistan and be buried together, after the locals stone them to death.

Gee, Mr. President. Don't you think that making the world safer for gays is more important than the legal niceties of their cohabitation?



In a related story, Obama awarded himself the newly created Order of bin Laden, for meritorious service in voting "present" in the White House Situation room. The medal depicts bin Laden sleeping with the fishes, alongside the American economy.

Cross posted at LCR.

Obama the Redundant

He figures he fooled you with it before...

"I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters"

-Barack Obama, 2008

If that were truly the case, don't you think he could come up with something other than this recycled pap?

Another Historic First for President Obama!

Barack Obama, America's greatest president in his own mind, had this to say about the Republicans' budget:

the Republicans running Congress right now* have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.

Really? Could it just be that from your perspective, Mr. President, your own budget was so far to the Left that it made the New Deal look like the Contract with America?

In the history of the Republic, has there ever been a president who submitted a budget that not a single member even of his own party would vote for? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. 414-0 Another historic first for President Obama!

*Mr. Obama: Have you met...Harry Reid? Senate Democrats have not produced a budget in three years.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

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.

Republican Writes "The American Jobs Act"

Last Saturday, we noted the President's bad case of premature espeechulation:

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Makes the Most Irrelevant Speech in the History of the Republic ,

where he repeatedly asked Congress to pass a bill that hadn't been written yet. It appears that all of the Democrats, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, failed to file the bill which Obama specifically called in his speech "The American Jobs Act".

But, since there wasn't actually a bill by that name that had been filed, a Republican lawmaker has stepped into the breach!

President Obama repeatedly asked members of Congress to pass the American Jobs Act last week. But when no Democrat filed Obama’s bill after he presented it to Congress, a conservative congressman swiped the name for his own legislation.

The American Jobs Act introduced in the House of Representatives looks quite different from the version President Obama outlined in his speech to Congress. Instead of hiking taxes on working Americans to pay for another stimulus, Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-TX) legislation offers a tax cut.

UPDATE: Gohmert’s bill now has a number. It’s HR 2911.

Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Maybe next time, Obama will actually have a bill for Congress to pass when he repeats ad nauseum, "Pass this bill"?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Makes the Most Irrelevant Speech in the History of the Republic

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is trying to steal my thunder:

The Irrelevancy of the Obama Presidency

This speech will go down in history. Unfortunately, not in a good way. Traditionally, the President will speak to a joint session of Congress for an annual State of The Union address, or some pressing policy matter or something of relatively great importance. Now, I'm not saying unemployment is unimportant,but the President's speech was.

First of all, he didn't even believe it himself:

Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that’s made things worse.

Urgent? Crisis?? His speech was what? 45 minutes? Are you telling me that he couldn't have delayed his ten day Martha's Vineyard vacation 45 minutes to make a speech he considered both urgent and a "crisis"?

To make matters worse, he said nothing of substance. A lot of vague platitudes about how American needed jobs and Congress needed to pass the jobs bill.

Drumroll please! ..................What "jobs bill"? He didn't submit one. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. There's a funny video going around, a montage of Obama saying nothing but all his variations on "Pass the bill". I counted 14 times in that video, Levin said he counted 17 or 18 times in the speech.

But, Obama hadn't delivered a jobs bill to Congress yet. He was selling a "pig in a poke", as it were, channeling the Home Shopping Network or Billy Mays. I half expected the video to have a countdown clock of how many minutes were left to get this great deal!

So why does the President of the United States call to address a joint session of Congress for a nothingburger speech about a vaporware bill that possibly hasn't even been written yet?

I speculated earlier that he might need a captive studio audience to pop up with standing ovations and provide applause to punctuate the most mundane policy projections. It was worse than I thought. Not only was his "jobs bill" short on specifics, there was nothing at all except Obama's snake oil spiel about what those specifics might be.

Wouldn't it made more sense to bring a substantive and specific bill and sell the positive aspects of that?

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.
...Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.

Again. Obama doesn't believe it either. I mean, think about it. If this jobs bill were nothing controversial, with bipartisan support, that wasn't going to break the bank adding to the deficit, why would anyone possibly oppose it? Why the hard sell infomercial in front of a joint session of Congress to sell something that, according to Obama (stop laughing!) didn't need selling?

Now for the "class envy" part of the program:

I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.

Tax breaks and loopholes and profits, oh, my! You want to see the irony in this (and why he probably doesn't believe this either), look at what he proposes in other parts of the speech:

it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers,

Really? I though tax breaks were only for the "most fortunate" who can "best afford to pay taxes"?

small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages.

Um, don't you usually call those "loopholes", Mr. President? Some loopholes are more equal than others, I guess! I guess they're tax breaks if you like them and "loopholes" if you don't!

Another hypocrisy moment:

I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

This is the guy who tried his damnedest to end the Bush era, across the board tax cuts just last December.

I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs right here in the United States of America

Too funny! Jeffrey Immelt of GE, Obama's top business adviser, who recently moved a hundred year old division of GE Health to Red China (while GE paid no domestic corporate taxes in the US), was sitting in the audience next to the president's wife. The word "cozy" comes to mind.

And speaking of "best-connected lobbyists" would that include solar panel companies, run and owned by political cronies who frequently visit the White House, and contribute generously to Democrat campaign coffers in return for half a billion dollars in loan guarantees for a business that had never shown a profit and was unlikely to in the future? The kind of access to the White House that Solyndra had, would you characterize that, Mr. Obama as something "few of the most affluent citizens enjoy"? (We'll save "most profitable" for the stand up portion of the program.)

And Warren Buffett, whom the president mentioned is also quite a bit in arrears on his taxes. That qualifies him for a cabinet position, doesn't it Mr. Obama? Or at least a Czarship!

Another irony alert: Mr. Obama, just who do you think is responsible for creating all those "tax breaks and loopholes" for "the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations"? Congress, primarily composed of Democrats for more years than not in the last half century created all those exemptions, all those breaks, all those so called "loopholes", often in exchange for campaign contributions.

So, you create those "loopholes" for your friends and the wealthy and those who contribute to your campaign or increase your power, and then you make a big show of being "shocked, Shocked!" that they would actually take advantage of what you created for them. Yeah. Right.

And now for the really big lie. I'm sorry, there's no polite way to say it. Obama is lying through his teeth!

This is the American Jobs Act. It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, for teachers, for veterans, for first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed. It will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief to small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle class. And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act

It would be one thing if Obama said his cuts would slow the rate of government spending beyond what they might have been, but to claim that new programs are going to be "paid for" by reducing the amount of deficit spending, is not telling the truth. It is not "paid for" if we still have to borrow money to do it. The "agreement" which Obama claims to save a "trillion dollars over ten years will not be binding on Congress for even the next two years, and does not reduce government spending, even if it did. The truth is, the size of government spending under Obama's "agreement" continues to rise every year for the next ten years.

Obama is implying that the cuts would produce tangible funds that could be used to pay for his program. In truth, he's just playing a shell game with the debt.

It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas

Which, even if it happens (and don't hold your breath or we'll all look like Smurfs!), won't begin to cut into the nation's debt. And personally, I don't think it will happen, which will trigger this gutless administration's plan to gut the military, at a time when we have boots on the ground in multiple wars and conflicts around the world.

I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act

Sweeping back the sea with a broom might not be a hard task for the Lightbringer, who makes the sea levels lower at his word, but Congress needs to run for re-election every two to six years, and might be beholden to special interests and pork laden projects designed to keep them in office. Obama glibly says, "We'll just cut a few more programs between now and Christmas!"

Here's the extra credit portion of the program: Can you think of even one program (outside the military) that Obama has personally suggested that the country might be able to do without?

Remember when Candidate Obama said if he were president, he would go through the budget line by line to eliminate waste? In the last three years (even accounting for the budget the Democrats failed to pass last year), how many of those lines items do you think he sent to Nancy Pelosi while she was Speaker of the House, to eliminate. How many times did he sit down with Harry Reid, (and only use the Negro dialect when he wanted to) to urge the Senate to take his line by line evaluation of the budget to heart? Beuller? Beuller??

So, Congress is unlikely or unable (or both) to find enough cuts to keep the country from going further and further into debt, but that's okay, so long as it's more of the good debt (the kind that already lowered America's credit rating once and probably will again before we inaugurate our next president).

And when nothing gets done, Obama will parade his laundry list of platitudes and good intentions on the stump and blame Republicans for not passing the American Jobs Bill.

...Whatever that is!


More at Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Can Fix Social Security, No Sweat!

And, he's got a bridge he can sell you!

“Social Security is not in crisis. We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it.”

-Barack Obama

Isn't that just amazing? Who knew? This must have just happened recently. Otherwise, why didn't he implement these "modest adjustments" during the first two years of his term, while his party held both the House and Senate? But, assuming that this "Road to Damascus" revelation came to him in the last six or seven months, why hasn't he called Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in to his office to reveal to them the "modest adjustments" they need to introduce so that Obama can sign them into law and save Social Security?

Why not? Because, truth be told, the "modest adjustments" are not that modest. There is no way to reform a massive entitlement like Social Security without causing someone or a lot of someones, major pain. And those someones vote.

If there truly were just minor adjustments that would save the solvency of Social Security against the large number of Boomers about to retire in the next ten years, why not implement them as soon as possible? And why the lack of specifics? If Obama has a plan, he should spell it out! He's the leader of our country, he should lead!

It's funny. I recently heard a lib compare conservatives to "snake oil salesmen". Obama's vague, "Trust me, I'll fix it" smacks more of snake oil than statesmanship.

If he really has a plan, he should spell it out, or will he "hold Social Security hostage" until after the election. (I'm just channeling my inner liberal here!)

Cross posted at LCR.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Is Also the Most Hypocritical (video)

"I cannot guarantee that those checks ("Social Security, Veteran's checks, folks on disability...70 million checks")go out on August third if we haven't resolved this issue."

Compare that to his remarks before House Republicans in 2010...

From a You Tube video of Obama's Q & A with Republicans (about one hour, twenty three minutes in). Transcript here.

...there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a serious discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, "Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

Get it? We can't solve the nation's problems if some demagogue is claiming the other party will hurt our senior citizens...unless those mean spirited Republicans don't do what I want, then they are personally jeopardizing 70 million senior citizens, veterans and the disabled from getting their checks on time.

I think it is instructive, that of the billions of dollars the federal government spends in millions of places, the first and apparently only places Barack Obama can think to cut, to pay for all his other pork projects, is Social Security checks, veterans' and disability benefits.

The federal government needs to stop the insane spending levels. The endless borrowing has got to stop. For Barry to try to scare seniors and others on a fixed income by threatening to stop their checks is despicable.

And make no mistake. The money is there not to default on any loan payments or Social Security checks. If any senior or veteran who is denied a benefit check on August 3rd. it will be because Barack Obama makes a conscious decision to callously play politics with these people's lives.


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Holds a Press Conference

Sometimes you hear hypocrisy so thick you can cut it with a knife. Think Bill Clinton telling us he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, John Kerry throwing someone else's medals over the White House fence (his are hanging on his senate office wall), think Joe Biden plagiarizing Neil Kinnock's campaign speech, or John Edwards... saying anything at all! This president may have set the new gold standard in hypocrisy today.

THE PRESIDENT: I think people should think of — look, I’m the President of the United States* and I want to make sure that I am not engaging in scare tactics. And I’ve tried to be responsible and somewhat restrained so that folks don’t get spooked.

August 2nd is a very important date. And there’s no reason why we can’t get this done now. We know what the options are out there. This is not a technical problem any longer. This is a matter of Congress going ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions. Because we know what the decisions are. We’ve identified what spending cuts are possible. We’ve identified what defense cuts are possible. We’ve identified what health care cuts are possible. We’ve identified what loopholes in the tax code can be closed that would also raise revenue. We’ve identified what the options are. And the question now is are we going to step up and get this done.

So far, so good. It's the smarmy, condescending hypocrisy of the next few sentences that make Barry stand out from other Democrats:

And, you know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 13** , Sasha is 10.

Q Impressive.

THE PRESIDENT: It is impressive. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters. (Laughter.) They’re 13 and 10. Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.

"Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it." Where was President Smarmy Condescending Obama last year, when Democrats controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House and Democrats controlled the White House, and they needed and were Constitutionally required to submit a federal budget and didn't? Why wasn't President Smarmy Condescending telling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the rest of Congress last year, that his daughters "Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 11 , Sasha is 9"? Were Malia and Sasha pulling "all-nighters" in 2010? Couldn't he get a teleprompter on the golf course long enough to tell Congress that "if you know you’ve got to do something, just do it" ?

And I’ve got to say, I’m very amused when I start hearing comments about, well, the President needs to show more leadership on this. Let me tell you something. Right after we finished dealing with the government shutdown, averting a government shutdown***, I called the leaders here together. I said we’ve got to get done — get this done. I put Vice President Biden in charge of a process**** — that, by the way, has made real progress — but these guys have met, worked through all of these issues. I met with every single caucus for an hour to an hour and a half each *****— Republican senators, Democratic senators; Republican House, Democratic House. I’ve met with the leaders multiple times. At a certain point, they need to do their job.

Anyone want to do a tally on just how many times Barry says "they need to do their job" or "it’s got to be done"? I count seven got to be done's, and get it done's, at least one "do something" and two "they need to do their job's".

Tell you what, Barry. Just say that something needs to be done and say it over and over and over. And over. And over. In fact, say it once for every round of golf you'd played since becoming Present, er, President, (73 and counting) and I'm sure it will be exactly the same as if you'd exercised actual leadership!

And so, this thing, which is just not on the level, where we have meetings and discussions, and we’re working through process, and when they decide they’re not happy with the fact that at some point you’ve got to make a choice, they just all step back and say, well, you know, the President needs to get this done — they need to do their job.

Now is the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. That’s why they’re called leaders. And I’ve already shown that I’m willing to make some decisions that are very tough and will give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time. But it’s got to be done.

And so there’s no point in procrastinating. There’s no point in putting it off. We’ve got to get this done. And if by the end of this week, we have not seen substantial progress, then I think members of Congress need to understand we are going to start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done.

President Full of Himself sprains an arm patting himself on the back here:

They’re in one week, they’re out one week. And then they’re saying, Obama has got to step in. You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.

"I've been doing Afghanistan" Other than not listening to his generals, what exactly has he done while he was "doing Afghanistan"? And "I've been doing the Greek crisis". Really? Has he actually done to mitigate the crisis? Or just vote "present"?

Add to that the gratuitous mention of bin Laden, as if he lead the raid himself. How much you want to bet he bought one of those Obama Seal Team Six action figures for himself? And don't get me started on whatever role playing he and Michelle are doing behind closed doors! How long is he going to try to milk the "I was busy getting bin Laden and that's why the economy went to Hell"?


*Captain Obvious moment

**"Malia is 13". Malia is 12. She hasn't had her thirteenth birthday yet. So much for Barry's "steel trap mind".

***Averting a government shutdown. By finally backing down on his and his party's insistence on ending the Bush tax cuts...in a recession, in effect, raising everyone's taxes.

****Joe Biden in charge of anything. There's a recipe for taking charge!

***** "I met with every single caucus for an hour to an hour and a half each" Anyone want to make book on how this compares to golf time, not to mention the myriad of vacations? And if his meeting with them was key to getting anything done, why didn't he meet with them last year and get a budget done before the Constitutional deadline? (Maybe they should have pulled an "all-nighter"?)

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Talks to Autoworkers (video)

Obama explains why the economy, exemplified by the Jeep behind him,
is up on blocks and stripped.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ demonstrates his tin ear once again, towards the concerns of working men and women.

President Obama didn't mention Friday's weak jobs report in his speech at a Chrysler plant in Ohio, instead choosing to talk about the recovery of the auto industry.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, told reporters on the flight to Toledo that Obama "will talk about the jobs numbers."

But one of the only allusions Obama made to the bleak report was when he said that "we're going to pass through some rough terrain that even a Wrangler would have a hard time with." (The Chrysler workers, who make the Wrangler at that plant, responded by booing and heckling him.)

"A Wrangler can go over anything, huh?" Obama retorted.

Is this guy for real? A lame analogy, pandering to his audience (I'm sure his speech writer* thought that would have been a clever applause line!) goes over like a lead balloon and Obama doubles down on "cutesie".

Perhaps the Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ should learn a little humility, take a little personal responsibility for the decisions made by his administration in the last two years, and not take such a lighthearted approach to the heart wrenching problems of unemployment and a stagnant economy.

For future reference, Mr. President? You might want to avoid the words "Let them eat cake" as well.

Update:

"There's going to be some head winds on the getting hit by a truck, bump in the road here!"

*With the mish mash of mixed metaphors, Obama may have written this speech himself. I mean...how hard could it be for the "smartest guy in the room"?


H/T John Lott

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Speaks at AIPAC, Again

Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions on Iran!

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ addressed an AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington today. (Candidate Obama addressed them in 2008.) A couple of things jumped out at me.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.

A "tough neighborhood"??? Excuse me, Mr. President, but Israel is a nation under siege from its enemies. Chicago has rough neighborhoods, Israel is in a war zone.

"You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime."

Tough sanctions against Iran? How'd that work out for us against Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Did tough sanctions bring down his regime or bring about peace in the region or extinguish his desire to rebuild his WMD capabilities? Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions! /sarcasm

"...a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region."

Oh, you mean like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after you were instrumental in the removal of Mubarak, who are avowedly hostile to Israel? And whatever factions are rebelling in Libya, about whose ideologies and intentions towards Israel you haven't a clue?

So, let me see...we have turmoil in Egypt, Syria, and Libya, where you just started a military action. We have shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you sent a military mission into Pakistan, without the knowledge or permission of their government, and now you want to impose your will on our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, because...you needed to draw attention away from your golf outings??

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"

Here's where you plan goes off the rails, Mr. President. Take the city of Jerusalem, the city of David, the capitol of Israel. Your proposal not only has it jutting like a peninsula into what would then be another country, but the old lines transect Jerusalem. Which part of Jerusalem do you envision either side would "mutually agree" to give up? On what would you base that belief? Certainly not on the last 44 years of history! And you have publicly stated that Jerusalem "must remain undivided". Who mutually agreed to that swap, Mr. President?

In the end, you have a pretty speech, which is only as dependable as the man who gives it. Too often in the past, Obama's promises have come with an expiration date. Why should we believe these are any different? And why should the nation of Israel risk its security and existence based on your words, Mr. Obama?

Full Text Of Obama's Speech To AIPAC

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.