The Obama administration told us that not only would they be very good at spending unfathomable sums of money, but they’d also be maestros at turning that cash into jobs for a job-hungry America. Like so many White House words, the Big Job Promise is turning out to be nothing more than hype-fuel for the big-government machine.

Take the $3.3 billion grant program to upgrade the nation’s electricity network. Please. When it was announced in April by Joe “Oh, It’s Just A Little Lie” Biden, he had a pretty simple – if grammatically challenged – explanation for the grant’s intent: “This is jobs – jobs.”

ABC’s Rick Klein did some digging and found:

[T]he Obama administration is now saying it will not take the potential for job creation into account in “rating” proposed projects for possible funding — after initially saying that would be a primary consideration.

In April, when the Energy Department first announced regulations for companies that wish to apply for “Smart Grid Investment Grants,” “job creation and retention” was among the explicit criteria. …

But late last month, the department quietly modified the criteria to take the job piece out. As the department explained in a June 26 set of Frequently Asked Questions:

“These criteria differ significantly from those presented within the [Notice of Intent]. First, DOE removed the criterion on the extent of jobs creation ….”

Good governance mandates that return on investment should be the criteria for selecting these projects, not jobs, so I’m not disappointed in DOE’s new direction. But I am just a wee bit disappointed that the White House has become such a den of hyperbole and deceit.

1 Comment »

One good test of a truly accomplished liar is this: One who only tells big lies for a purpose is at best a mediocre liar, but one who tells irrelevant lies – especially when the world is watching – he is truly accomplished. As in Barack Obama. And Newsweek.

NRO reports on Newsweek reporting on a speech Obama gave today to the graduating class of the New Economic School in Moscow, in which he said:

I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’ll all going to have wonderful careers.

The trouble is, that cute couple Barack and Michelle didn’t meet in the classroom. Yes, they both went to Harvard Law, but they did not have any classes together (she graduated in ’88, he in ’91) and didn’t meet until later, while lawyering in Chicago. It was a lie for no real purpose since he had already connected sufficiently with the students by that point.

How do you feel about having a president who would do such a thing? How can you trust him when he says cap & tax is just a jobs program, or that he won’t socialize medicine, or that he’ll fix the economy if he lies about when and where he met his wife?

And how do you feel about this report on the incident by Newsweek?

Was what Obama said wrong? Technically no, considering Obama was still going to school when he met his wife. But for those keeping close watch on Obama trivia—ie, the White House press corps—the statement did seem a wee bit off.

Technically schmecnicly. It wasn’t a wee bit off; it was a flagrant, in your face, no doubt about it lie. Not a big lie, like “I’ll govern from the middle,” but a lie nonetheless – and if the esteemed members of the White House press corps can’t call it one, it’s a clear sign that at Newsweek at least, the honeymoon is still going strong and awash in passion.

Hey, Mr. President! When did you first meet Newsweek?

No Comments yet »

Stop the presses!  Barack Obama went to college! He joined groups! He wrote stuff! He attended meetings! The mainly marginalized media, content that their candidate is solidly ensconsed in office, has finally decided to write the stories they should have written last summer and fall.

Here’s the Obama-crazed NY Times, letting its readers know “Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision.” Imagine that. Obama had a youth. It shaped him. Gosh, maybe it should have been reported. Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy puts it in perspective, writing, “the mainstream media has finally done a bit of the candidate background reporting it declined to do during the campaign — other than in Wasilla.”

The NYT is based on an article the future president wrote for The Sundial, a college newspaper, in which he railed against war and industrialism – in this case, being “sensitive” about “the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala.” Guatemala?!  He calls national policies “distorted” and says the country is “on a dead-end track.”  The article goes on and on, like an Obama answer at a press conference, until all but the most love-struck or policy wonkish will sign out by the second of its three paragraphs. Fortunately, McCarthy plowed through it all and dug up some gems:

Generally, the narrow focus of the [Nuclear] Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.  When Peter Tosh sings that “everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,” one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.

And this the big, emotional (unintelligble) wind-up:

Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience — that of war.  But then, there are some things we shouldn’t have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.

So now, way too belatedly, the NYT has found one measly article and written a story about it. Obama was in college for eight long years and left many, many more footprints than this one article.  The marginalized media can never overcome the black mark [can I say "black mark?"] earned from its lack of negative coverage during the campaign – but that shouldn’t stop it from finally covering the story now.

No Comments yet »

That Robert “I’ve Just Got to Get a Message to You” Gibbs is a disaster as a press secretary goes without saying, given his utter lack of ability to communicate for a president who is widely recognized as a great communicator. The press can accept a lousy press secretary, but they can’t accept a lousy press policy – and that’s what they’re getting from Obama and Gibbs.

Check out the complainers in this clip – CBS and Helen Thomas, former Obama cheerleaders.  Now they’re drilling Gibbs and accusing the Obama administration of being more closed and controlling than the Nixon administration – Thomas’ now famous line.

In the face of this criticism, Gibbs is insulting and condescending, trying to create a false camaraderie instead of straightforwardly addressing the media’s legitimate questions.  Thomas cut him no slack:

Gibbs, finally dropping the false friendliness: “We’ve had this discussion ad nauseum.”
Thomas, pouncing immediately: “Of course you would, because you haven’t had any answers.”

1 Comment »

It should come as a surprise to no one with blood flowing through their cortex, but Pres. Obama is not exactly running the “paragon of transparency” presidency he promised during the campaign. What? A broken Obama-promise? I know, it’s a shocker, but read on.

Do you recall The One’s promise to use the Internet to open up government process to the public’s eye? You know, the one under which we promised us all bills would be posted on line for at least 48 hours before a vote? >cough!< Waxman-Markey! Yeah, well it gets worse. Today, the Goebbels acolytes in the Obama admin have unveiled USASpending.gov, which books itself as “Where Americans can see where their money goes.”

And here’s what we learn:

Here’s how the pie breaks down (sorry – transferring the legend slows down page loads):

The purple slice is “Contracts,” at $221,177,641,981.  I believe that’s what everyone else calls “entitlements.”

“Grants,” in rust, is the biggest slice, at $237,027,203,718. Who knows what they’ve thrown in that bucket.

The light blue slice, at $63,771,782, is “Loans.”  None of which have come my way.

The little pea green sliver is “Insurance,” at $2,062,647,048.

And rounding out the pie is orange, “Direct Payments,” at $41,687,210,164

Not getting its own slice but showing up in the legend is $37,345,915,842, which is simply termed “Other Assistance.” Don’t ask what other assistance; it’s just $37.3 trillion. Don’t worry.

What’s missing?  Hint: Without it, all this is FREEEE!

That’s right, Pres. Transparency has shown us where government’s money goes without including those four black magic [Can I say black magic?] letters D-E-B-T.  If Americans really want to see where their money goes, this cute little pie chart is as meaningless as any other Obama-promise.  All obfuscation, no substance.

What we have instead is a list that appeals only to the takers and ignores the givers, the payers.  USASpending.gov should be renamed SuckingOffThePublicTeat.gov or GimmeGimmeGimme.gov. It’s a list that depicts America as Obama wants America to see itself – wholly dependent on the government without giving anythought to the terrible cost of that dependence.  Just stick the needle in your arm and shut up.

Welcome to the Obama years.

2 Comments »

It is so important for America to send a single message in its foreign policy efforts, with the president and the State Department closely aligned, speaking with one voice, to show the unfied, powerful consistency of the world’s sole superpower. So …

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

And …

President Obama said yesterday that the military ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and could set a “terrible precedent,” but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States government was holding off on formally branding it a coup, which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country. (WaPo)

Well, I’m glad we’ve clarified our position.  What was that position again?  And how does all this “terrible precedent” tough talk align with Obama’s fear of saying anything forceful in Iran?

1 Comment »

President Obama’s favorite flipped out radical buddy, Cass Sunstein, has met a bit of a roadblock in the form of GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who is concerned by Sunstein’s radical pro-animal positions. Seems like an odd thing to block a nomination over, but pause and consider these Sunstein quotes:

“I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.” – Animal Rights, a 2004 book by Sunstein.

“Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement the efforts of public prosecutors.” – ibid.

Sunstein, a Harvard prof who’s been nominated by Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will have the power to review every single federal regulation and suggest changes to make them more conformed with Obama’s vision of Amerika.

The Hill reports that Sunstein could be gleefully rubbing his palms together, waiting for confirmation because his point of view “strongly suggests” that “there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.” He gave Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a member of the Agriculture Committee, teh sort of assurances a nominee gives when asked pointed questions, you know, “Oh, I said that? Well, whatever, but it surely wouldn’t influence my actions. Don’t believe it just because I wrote it; believe what I’m saying now because I’m saying it.”

Chambliss says he’s talked to a lot of agricultural interests that aren’t ready to buy Susstein’s confirmation hearing conversion, so he’s going to block the nomination until he gets a chance to ask the nominee face to face.

The White House had no comment. But we’re told they think this is one baaaaaad development.

Among Sunstein’s other radical viewpoints is one that would come in handy to Obama as he plots his takeover of America’s healthcare system.  Sunstein once urged the federal government to devalue the elderly when calculating the benefits of federal regulations because “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Read more at the American Conservative Union.

No Comments yet »

Oh, they’d like to think the leader of the free world can give everyone a free lunch and still lead the economy out of recession, and Lefties turn to Huffington Post whenever economic worries overwhelm them, knowing they’ll find there reassuring blather to dope them back into a happy stupor.

But not today. Today they find a column by Dan Dorfman titled Everything Is Not Coming Up Roses.  After running through the latest rosy scenarios one gets if one hangs around the Rose Garden too much, Dorfman settles in with one Madeline Schnapp, economic researcher at TrimTabs Investment Research,whom he calls “one of the country’s leading liquidity trackers.” Her view:

The labor market, as Schnapp sees it, is still in horrible shape. Granted, she observes, weekly unemployment and continuing unemployment claims have declined slightly, but they remain at high levels, while online job demand appears to have stabilized at an extremely low level. As for housing, she says the notion that it’s starting to recover is nonsense. Aside from the growing defaults in Alt-A mortgages, California foreclosures are up 156% since March.

Another big worry, according to Schnapp, is the huge government debt. Spendthrift Uncle Sam, she points out, has to sell $1.5 trillion of new debt every quarter just to finance the deficit and pay down existing debt.

Her worrisome economic bottom line: “How can anyone say the economy is out of the woods?” Taking that concern a step further, she feels the economy is unlikely to expand until well into …

Well into when? Well into when? Oh, that’s the news that bodes really badly for Uncle Barack “Sam” Obama. Schnapp, like many other economists the readers of HuffPo would rather ignore, believes there will be no economic expansion until well into 2010.

Like maybe November, sometime after election day. And it could well be GOP landslides in the House and Senate, brought on by frustration with Obama’s terrible bludgeoning of the economy, that finally spark the economy into recovery.

Art hat-tip: Red State Conservative

No Comments yet »

One nice thing you can say about Mark “The Bastard” Sanford – his breaking scandal probably took some viewers away from the All Barack Channel’s special on Obamacare.  And that might have been a relief for our president, who apparently needed a prescription for his massive headache after comprehensively failing to sell comprehensive health care reform.

(Disclaimer:  I was watching Jack Bauer try to figure out who assassinated David  Palmer in season 5 of “24,” so I somehow managed to miss the ABC sell-a-thon.)

Reports this morning show it was pretty rough going for the Prez, who portrays himself as a man of the people, but only so far …

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

…Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother I always want them to get the very best care.” (source)

And they’ll get that care through a government-run system like Canada’s?  Obama also struggled to explain how a government-supported system wouldn’t cut the legs out from under the private delivery of medical services.  Faced with GOP criticism on the matter, he said:

“They’re wrong,” the president said, arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange, the public plan would be “one option among multiple options.”

The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn’t be offered on a level playing field.

The president rebuffed that, arguing that “we can set up a public option where they’re collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates,” but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs “we can keep them [private insurance companies] honest.”

Obama said he didn’t understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.

I can’t understand why a man who is as smart as the president can look at the Post Office and Amtrak and still want to shove government’s nose into the health delivery and insurance system.  At least let’s give him a few years to show us what he can do with GM and Chrysler before we turn our bodies over to him.

Brave Michelle Malkin actually watched Obama Night on ABC and summed it up well:

Things the Obamercial taught me…

*More government = less paperwork and less bureaucracy!

*Dear Leader proclaims: “The stars have aligned.” (This from the oaf who wrongly mocked Nancy Reagan for holding seances in the White House. Reminder: It was Hillary who did that.)

*”We can’t afford not to act.” Like we haven’t heard such empty apocalyse-now haranguing a gazillion times over the last year.

No Comments yet »

As the administration that promised to be the most ethical ever plods on through the dark forest of disclosure forms, the president is finding once again that what’s easy to promise on the campaign trail is hard to deliver once in power.  Another case in point:

The criminal defense lawyer nominated by President Obama to be the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey is declining to identify more than half of his private clients on government forms designed to help the public guard against potential conflicts of interests.

Paul J. Fishman, nominated to serve as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, is citing the privacy interests of the clients – an exemption that is permitted under federal ethics laws, but that leaves prosecutors on an honor system to police their own conflicts, ethics watchdogs say.

Mr. Fishman provided the names of 29 clients on the government disclosure form, including a convicted former New Jersey municipal official, a health care company and the former girlfriend of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

But he withheld the names of “approximately 37 confidential clients,["] saying they cannot be named because they are involved in grand jury or other secret investigations. (Washington Times)

We are told by a Pepperdine law prof that “you just have to trust the guy’s ethical integrity” because the guy has a right to protect clients like crooked municipal officials and girlfriends of governors. Riiight.

Fishman, who’s made $2.3 million in the last 18 months, so he must be pretty good at defending creeps, did feel it was OK to provide this client list:

• Thomas A. Greenwald, a former Far Hills, N.J., council member who pleaded guilty to laundering about $700,000 in loan-sharking and gambling proceeds;

• Alfred S. Teo Sr., a businessman who pleaded guilty in 2006 to insider trading and was sentenced to more than two years in prison in 2007;

• Richard Stadtmauer, the brother-in-law of convicted New Jersey developer Charles Kushner. Stadtmauer was sentenced to more than three years in prison earlier this year in a tax-fraud case.

• Carla Katz, the former girlfriend of Mr. Corzine, in a civil lawsuit involving her former role as an official of a union for state workers.

Three of those four stand convicted despite Fishman’s counsel – and since he’s made so much money, one can only conclude that these upstanding citizens of New Jersey were in for much worse originally.  This experience with limiting the pain for those guilty of graft, money laundering, tax evasion and other white collar crimes should serve the Obama admin well, should any of its appointees become the focus of New Jersey’s federal prosecutor.

If confirmed, Fishman will replace Christopher J. Christie, now the Republican candidate for governor, who forged a reputation as a corruption-busting prosecutor.  Rather than carrying on that tradition, Obama elected to appoint a corruption-bust-dodging defense attorney to the job.

No Comments yet »