Fun & Frivolity: Don't Look Down And A Sweet Laptop

Wow. I think this would be quite an...um, interesting...place to stand:

Not content with having the tallest building in America, the owners of Sears Tower in Chicago have installed four glass box viewing platforms which stick out of the building 103 floors up.

The balconies are suspended 1,353 feet in the air and jut out four feet from the building's Skydeck.

Designers say the platforms - collectively dubbed The Ledge - have been purposely designed to make visitors feel as they are floating above the city.

The reward is unobstructed views of Chicago from the building's west side and a heart-stopping vista of the street and Chicago River below - for those brave enough to look straight down.

Whew! Not for the faint of heart (or stomach)!

Finally, this is a slice of pure geeky sweetness:

I have got to get me one of those! :)

Have a great weekend!

The Fight Caucus Is Born!

I've often said that I want some fights picked in Washington.

I'm sick and tired of Republicans campaigning as conservative tough talkers who moderate and go all Jello once they actually get off the campaign trail and into office. I'm certain I'm not alone! I'd love to see a new face on the GOP - a group of elected conservative leaders who boldly stand up and pick the fights that the Right base is begging them to pick. We can win because the facts, history, and logic are on our side. But we need to have leaders willing to fight these fights, and around whom a movement can be built. I believe that's one of the reasons for the popularity of Sarah Palin - she's a pitbull with lipstick. We like the lipstick, but we are desperate for a pitbull!

Mike Pence is one of the best Reps in Washington, and has legitimate conservative credentials. It looks like he's taking up the cause in a chill-inducing new ad:

Let's hope others join this new Fight Caucus and lay the foundation for a landslide sweep in 2010.

There's my two cents.

Stimulus Update: Another Go-Around

Let's dig into this talk of another 'stimulus' a bit more. Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-09, is a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow, has a great piece at the Wall Street Journal (excerpts):

In "Brewster's Millions," a comedy starring Richard Pryor, a man is told he can keep $300 million if he manages to spend $30 million in one month. The movie documents -- with a great deal of humor -- his difficulties getting the money spent. The Obama administration is currently facing a similar problem with its "stimulus" spending, only without the humor.

With the economy weak and the labor market continuing to decline, there is now talk of a second stimulus (which is actually the third, counting President Bush's 2008 tax rebates). This would be a mistake. The truth is there hasn't been any stimulus to speak of so far this year. Moreover, what's being called stimulus is just a smoke screen for a permanent expansion of government. Let's start with some facts.

By June 26, about $56 billion was spent on the stimulus from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed Feb. 17. A large proportion of that actually reflects mere transfers from the federal government to state governments, so the amount that has gotten into the economy is significantly lower.

But even if we call all of the $56 billion spending, it's still not enough to make a meaningful impact. By this point of the year in 2008, the Bush administration's tax-rebates got out about $80 billion. Most economists believe the rebates had a positive but hardly dramatic effect on the economy.

The Obama stimulus, being significantly smaller, cannot possibly be expected to turn the economy around.

Congress and the Obama administration have used the economic downturn as an excuse to expand the size of government. Calling it a stimulus, they have instead put in place a spending agenda that will unfold over the next two years. Although a little over one-third of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 goes to tax relief, the rest is in the form of spending programs that will be difficult to stop once they are up and running.

Only a small share of the spending will occur in 2009, even though Keynesians would argue that stimulus spending should be frontloaded to kick-start growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the largest share of the spending will occur in 2010, with the amount in 2011 being slightly larger than in 2009.

Some argue that a tax cut is a weaker stimulus than direct government spending. This point is debated among economists. But it is clearly much easier for Treasury to write checks to the public than it is to get agencies to rev up spending programs and do so in a way that does not simply throw away money.

It's a bit odd that the reaction by the Obama administration and some congressional leaders to a policy that has not worked is to consider putting a similar policy in place. One interpretation is that this is yet another opportunity to spend more on programs that Democrats have wanted for years.

It may be the case that the country wants more government, that Americans now believe the European model of big government is best. That is a decision that society must make. But it should do so with no illusions: The current stimulus and calls for a future one are primarily government growth policies, not strategies to shorten the current recession.

If you've read this blog for any length of time, you know the truth about the non-stimulating 'stimulus' and the current state of our economy, as well as the true intentions behind it. To throw another one out there is the worst idea in a string of increasingly awful ideas.

Andre Weisbrod, president & chief executive of Staar Financial Advisors in Pittsburgh, put it this way:

"I think it's insane, the first stimulus package has not even been spent yet ... [t]hey are creating what I would call the government bubble . . . When that bursts we are in huge trouble."

I'd say 'huge' is putting it mildly.

The ever-entertaining Ace of Spades offers this:

As I argued back then:

For the cost of Obama's $1.2 trillion "stimulus," we could give employers a 2 1/2 year payroll tax holiday. Encouraging them to hire new workers by reducing their actual costs.

Over 2 1/2 years, that's 2.8 million new jobs, based on standard economic assumptions. Nevermind the additional jobs "preserved" (in Obama's weak promise) due to the fact it would now be cheaper to keep staff in place.

If this is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and we want a sharp sudden impact for our dollars, why not consider this route?

Alternately... To mollify the public (Hey, why are my employers getting a tax cut and I'm not?!!), one could give employers and employees both a half reduction for 2 1/2 years. Or both a full, complete holiday for 1.25 years.

Numbers crunched by Flip.

Instead, we have taken the one bullet in our stimulus gun and fired it futilely into the air. We're out of ammo now.

Democrats own this abortion. There is absolutely no Republican influence here at all, save the Maine Twins' eleventh-hour fussing over a billion here or there. (The other Senatorial turncoat is now an official Democrat... until he loses in November.)

They ignored all advice. They were drunk with power and determined to indulge their nasty little ids and do harmful things just to prove they could do them, like poorly-raised teenagers misbehaving when their parents are called away on business.

"I won," Obama explained.

Yeah, you won. Past tense.

Hit the link for a lot more on all of this madness.

The bottom line is that we need to stop and ask ourselves: given all that has gone on before, are we really so stupid as to let Obama and Congress do the same thing all over again?

There's my two cents.

Stimulus Update: It's Not Working

The wheels must be completely falling off if all of these outlets are reporting the truth that the stimulus isn't working. What's really unique and different is that the key selling points of the 'stimulus' at the beginning of this year are being completely rolled back now:

Let’s recall what David Axelrod said we should expect when Obama signed the bill:

Look, what we’re–first of all, a large part of the package is helping people who are caught in this recession; extending unemployment benefits, health care and so on. That’s going to have a stimulative effect, everybody agrees on that. There’s aid to the states in there to prevent layoffs, and that is going to have a stimulative effect. There are tax cuts in there that we feel are going to have a stimulative effect. And obviously, putting people to work rebuilding this country on energy projects, infrastructure projects, rebuilding classrooms all over this country to bring them up to 21st century standards and so on, all of these things are going to have an impact. And those things are going to happen quickly.

It's pretty clear that the primary purpose of the 'stimulus' was to create jobs and jump-start the economy immediately, especially by targeting 'shovel-ready' infrastructure projects, right? Now that the plan has been shown to be an utter failure, the purpose is suddenly...changing:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) on Wednesday urged House members to consider another stimulus package just for infrastructure projects in order to produce more jobs…

“I would like to see a second stimulus devoted solely to infrastructure,” he said. “It’s what produces jobs, and produces orders for factories, American factories…”

“Look, I think the stimulus bill was misnamed,” he said. “Part of it was stimulus, part of it was job creation, but a lot of it was relief,” such as increased unemployment insurance and food stamps.

Rendell suggested that a second stimulus creating more infrastructure projects can lead more directly to jobs.

And how about some people in the marketplace?

"Investors are grasping the fact that the recovery, when it does come, may not be as robust as what many hope for."
-- Robert Siewert, portfolio manager at Glenmede

"It's an overall reality check. People are starting to worry there may have been a disconnect between the market and reality. I kept thinking we were way due for a correction a month ago or more, and it wasn't coming."
-- Doreen Mogavero, president of Mogavero, Lee & Company

"We are maybe past the very worst of it, but that doesn't mean we are ready to zoom up. I think the recovery is likely to be shallow and uneven."
-- Janna Sampson, co-chief investment officer of OakBrook Investments

But it's not just high-profile Democrats or industry players, it's also coming from the Obama administration itself (emphasis mine):

When Vice President Joe Biden announced a new $3.3 billion grant program to upgrade the nation’s electricity network, the rationale was simple: “This is jobs — jobs,” he said in April.

But the 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 and now will require applicants, as stipulated within the Recovery Act, to report quarterly on the number of jobs created and retained.”

The drastically underwhelming results of the stimulus certainly explain the reason for this backward sprint. The GOP is finally starting to get their act together and attack this blindingly obvious point with a statement from Minority Leader Boehner and a terrific ad:

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement today on Vice President Biden’s trip to Ohio tomorrow:

“Our state has been hit hard by the recession, and, like many other Ohioans, I’ll be curious to see what the Vice President has to say, especially on the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ that clearly isn’t working. How will he defend a bill that the White House promised would create jobs ‘immediately’ in a state that still has over 10 percent unemployment? How will he explain the Administration’s promises that if we passed that bill, the nationwide unemployment rate would stay below eight percent, when it’s now at 9.5 percent and rising? How will he explain supporting policies that will destroy even more American jobs, like Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax or a government takeover of health care financed by a new tax on small business? The people of Ohio – like people all over America – have a right to know, where are the jobs?”

Here's another great ad, this time from the House Republican Conference:

Both of these are excellent attacks, and precisely the kind of thing that needs to be spread far and wide. But, more needs to be done. For example, these ads lead to the question of what is all this 'stimulus' doing (other than burying generations of Americans under mountains of debt)?

First off, it's a bailout of irresponsible government:

James Pethokoukis links to a GAO report that surveyed 16 states and the District of Columbia to see how stimulus funds are being spent. The study found that 90 percent of the stimulus funds spent so far have gone toward bailouts for fiscally irresponsible state governments. These states made commitments on health care and education spending commensurate to what they could afford during the boom years. When the economy crashed and tax revenues dried up, they had no way to pay for these commitments short of raising taxes, which none of them wanted to do. (Most states' constitutions restrict their ability to run deficits.)

This is what the stimulus was really all about — not creating or "saving" jobs, but preventing states from suffering the consequences of their profligacy.

But, it gets even worse. On top of completely failing to create jobs and bailing out irresponsible state governments, the 'stimulus' is being used for political paybacks and favored political constituencies in Obama-friendly regions:

Billions of dollars in federal aid has gone to those counties that supported Dear Leader Obama in the last election.

Obama Supporting Counties-- $69 per person
McCain Supporting Counties-- $34 per person

2008 Election By County (Washington Post)
USA Today reported:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

This is the real stimulus story. I hope the GOP puts out some good ads that hammer this home, too.

There's my two cents.

Hang It And Watch The Sinkage

RedState:

Is the White House’s well-oiled communications machine coming undone less than six months after President Obama took office?

Based on the past few days of mounting criticism regarding Obama’s top achievement — passage of the $787 billion stimulus — it appears that cracks are beginning to form. The administration wants to avoid distractions from its quest for government-run health care, but the mismanaged stimulus, combined with 9.5% unemployment, make it difficult.

Conservatives should not let this opportunity go to waste.

It started last Thursday with news that unemployment reached its highest level in 26 years. Vice President Joe Biden’s admission Sunday that the administration “misread the economy” prompted Obama to interrupt his scripted Russia trip to clarify Biden’s gaffe. “Rather than say ‘misread,’ we had incomplete information,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

There was more bad news today with a Government Accountability Report that contradicted Obama’s own statements about the stimulus. The GAO report even prompted the president’s die-hard supporters at the Center for American Progress to disagree with Obama whether the stimulus should be used to prevent layoffs or pay for longer-term projects to boost the economy.

Perhaps the strongest signal that the administration is nervous came yesterday afternoon when Biden’s office announced a panicked trip to Ohio in the wake of new polling from Quinnipiac University. Obama’s approval rating in Ohio over the past two months dropped from 62% to 49%. It took an even bigger dip among Ohio independents, falling from 59 percent to 38 percent. The president’s ratings on the economy are even worse.

Meanwhile, Republicans are capitalizing on the administration’s missteps by directing their fire at the stimulus.

“This is the greatest fabrication I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said of Obama’s claim that he had “incomplete information” about the economy. Boehner has made a mockery of the stimulus by enlisting a bloodhound to track down jobs.

At a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) accused the administration of having “rigged the game in its own favor” by repeatedly citing the “jobs saved” claim Obama loves to trumpet.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), chairman of the House Republican Conference, attacked Obama’s July 1 claim that the stimulus had “done its job” in a new web video that promotes a GOP alternative.

Unlike other issues where Republicans capitulated, the stimulus passed the House without a single GOP vote. Now is the time to hang this around Obama’s neck and watch him sink.

Amen to that!

There's my two cents.

More Pendulum Evidence

Remember, politics is a pendulum that is constantly swinging back and forth.  As a result of liberal Democrat control of the entirety of government, Americans are becoming uneasy with their actions, and are now heading back toward the right:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues.

Since independents and swing voters broke toward Obama and the Dems in big numbers in November, this has to be their primary concern:

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

It's all coming home because people appear to be attaching our economic woes right where they belong: Obama and the Democrats.

Last week's report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

This is obviously great news for us, but we can't just stop and coast now.  It's time to amp up the pressure, demanding the accountability and transparency they promised during the campaign, and shedding light on their incompetence and liberal-driven failures.  We want to not just win back seats in Congress in 2010, but we want a landslide that leaves no doubt about what this nation actually wants.

It's a very long time before the 2010 elections, and we need to be making the case NOW why there needs to be a major shift to the right.  These numbers indicate we're making progress...but we've got to keep driving it home.

There's my two cents.

The Bankrupt Party Of Porkulus

Michelle Malkin hits another grand slam:

Let there be no doubt: Democrats are the party with two ideas -- borrow and spend. The only vigorous internal debate on the left revolves around two questions: How much and how much more? Even as the first trillion-dollar stimulus craters, the debt-o-crats are floating yet another grand act of generational theft to create the illusion of jumpstarting the economy.

Call it Spawn of Spendulus. Return of the Porkulus Beast. White House economic adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson told an international economic conference: "We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus." Team Obama flack Robert Gibbs says the president isn't "ruling anything out, but at the same time he's not ruling anything in." Despite the inconvenient fact that less than 10 percent of the initial stimulus has been spent (or misspent), congressional Democrats remain "open" to the idea of digging a deeper fiscal hole for your children and grandchildren.
 
Porkulus One was a massive payoff to special interests and political constituencies (and dead people!) disguised as a job generator. A General Accounting Office analysis this week revealed that stimulus dollars allocated to states and localities are not being spent on what they're supposed to be spent on. States are making up their own criteria for spending. The most economically distressed parts of the country are getting shortchanged. School and transportation bureaucrats are using the money to preserve their own jobs instead of "stimulating" others. And assessments of the stimulative effect of the package are a joke. As House Republicans noted: "The administration has essentially 'rigged the game' of reporting the tangible effects of its stimulus program by creating an immeasurable metric -- 'jobs created or saved' -- that no one can disprove."
 
Irked by the mounting evidence of stimulus failure, Vice President Joe Biden griped at a spending event on Thursday: "This ain't about swimming pools and Frisbee parks and polar bear exhibits. This is about stuff that not only passed the test of jobs, but passed the smell test....All the talk about how we're gonna waste all this money, that's a dog that ain't barked yet. And it's not gonna bark on my watch." Yet last month, Sen. Tom Coburn exposed 100 smelly stimulus projects worth $5.5 billion, including $3.4 million for a wildlife "eco-passage" in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway; nearly $10 million to renovate an unused train station; and a $2 million "weatherization" contract awarded to a Nevada nonprofit recently fired for doing the same type of work.
 
After failing to recognize the inevitable and inexorable political forces that turned the stimulus into the mother of all Beltway boondoggles, media outlets are now playing catch up:

- USA Today reported this week that "counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain."
 
- ABC News reported this week that the failed stimulus tracking website run by the White House, Recovery.gov, will get an additional $18 million taxpayer-funded injection to support a "redesign." The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso points out that the contract was awarded to a Maryland firm whose donors have contributed $19,000 to Maryland's House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
 
- The Washington Times reported this week that "as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse" in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's backyard.
 
- And despite all the initial focus on basic infrastructure needs, Land Line magazine reported this week that "even with federal stimulus spending that put shovels in the ground on new infrastructure projects, analysts predict an overall decline of 4.3 percent on infrastructure in 2009."

The same underhanded, transparency-defying, earmark-stuffing process that marked the porkulus beast is dominating every other pricey piece of legislation hurtling through the Democrat-led Congress. The Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that passed the House two weeks ago contained bribes galore -- including a $50 million hurricane research center for Florida Democrat Alan Grayson and a $3.5 billion economic development "sweetener" package for Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur. The current healthcare takeover proposals feature a crucial payoff to Big Labor -- a golden exemption from any tax on union members' generous health care benefits.
 
The friends and patrons of Obama may be making out like bandits. But for everyone else, the Democrats' ideological bankruptcy comes at a nauseatingly steep price.

The freedom and prosperity of America.

There's my two cents.

Nuclear Power For All...Except Us

From the July issue of The Limbaugh Letter:

THE OBAMA ENERGY DOCTRINE: IRAN CAN DEVELOP NUCLEAR POWER; WE CAN'T.
"We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy," the President said in Prague on April 5, 2009. In his Cairo speech to "the Muslim world" on June 4, he declared: "Any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power."

Excluding America.

Barack Obama has long been unenthused about nuclear. As he admitted on die campaign trail in Iowa on Dec. 30, 2007: "I start off with a premise that nuclear energy is not optimal, and, so I am not a nuclear energy proponent." He told his college-age questioner, "Uh, it is true that Illinois has the most nuclear power plants of any state in the country, um, and that makes me that much more concerned about safety issues, since I have a 9-year-old and a 6-year-old daughter who live in that state ... I don't think that that's the best option. I am much more interested in solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and strategies [for] alternative fuels."

Wind is Obama's panacea. As he claimed on April 22, 2009: "It's esti- 1 mated that if we fully pursue our poten¬tial for wind energy on land and off¬shore, wind can generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030 and create a quarter-million jobs in the process ... It's a win-win: its good for the environment: its great for the economy.

Wrongo.

One reason oil and coal work so well as energy sources is because energy com¬panies can control their use to meet demand in real time. As energy expert William Tucker explained in National Review in March, an energy grid "is not a machine for cranking out electricity, but a highly tuned instrument; because electricity travels at the speed of light, it must be consumed as it is generated. If electricity drops more than 5 percent, brownouts or blackouts may occur. If it surges by an equal amount, it can damage electrical equipment."

Wind and solar are notoriously erratic. Even if wind energy could magically be tamed tomorrow to meet instantaneous demand, notes Tucker, "Our 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines cannot transport electricity more than 300 miles without excessive losses to heat and friction. The only way to reduce line loss is to upgrade to 765 kV. That means building an entirely new national grid ... The cost wil easily surpass $1 trillion."

A trillion bucks for a whole new grid to placate a volatile energy source? No problem! We're in Obama territory now.

In the June issue of The Limbaugh Letter ("Breaking Wind," p. 5), I reported to you that Denmark now regrets its move to wind power. Though Obama praises Denmark as a green Shangri-la for producing "almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power," Danish wind reality bites. According to The National Post, Denmark actually uses 50 percent more coal-generated electricity "to cover wind power's unpredictability." Pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 36 percent. And a recent analysis "finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost." Oops. The Danes have yet to close one single, eeevil dirty fossil-fuel plant; they have the highest energy bills in all of Europe; and their parliament's Chair of Energy Policy, Aase Madsen, called wind "a terribly expensive disaster."

That's also the conclusion of the odier EU countries that tried to go "renewable" with wind and solar. According to "Green Bubbles Bursting" in the April 20, 2009 National Review, none made a dent in their carbon emissions, and taxpayers on the hook for all the stupid green subsidies were hosed, as prices skyrocketed.

No wonder Europe is turning more and more to nuclear power. Here's a way to think about it: "A pound of uranium gives you 2 million times as much energy as a pound of coal," notes William Tucker. "That means you can run a whole city for a week with a lump of uranium you can hold in one hand."

Bingo. By contrast, to create that level of energy you'd need, according to energy blogger Kurt Cobb, "a line of 5-megawatt turbines stretching 110 miles." Lovely.

Nuclear power is the safest, cheapest, and most efficient form of energy known. Eastern Europe and France have long realized this; as the graph shows, now Western Europe is on board. So are China, India, and Japan. Amongst those three nations alone there are 69 nuclear reactors planned for future energy use, with Japan aiming to get about a third of its electricity from nuclear sources by 2050.

What's Obama's mid-century goal? To "cut our carbon pollution by about 80 percent." Enter his disastrous wind and solar power plan — and an economy-killing cap-and-trade scheme. As he told that college kid in Iowa: "[E]very bit of pollution and greenhouse gas that you emit, we will charge you money for it."

So the President is intent on drowning us in taxes and through-the-roof energy bills — in order to enact proven energy duds. We're moving toward die Stone Age, while Obama gives the green light to the Stone Age Islamo-fascist regimes of the Middle East to nuke up. Ah, Hope and Change.

Hope-n-change, indeed.

If we can't kill this cap-n-tax bill, the American economy is going to take a pounding the likes of which we haven't seen in many, many years.  The potential silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats who pushed it through would be thoroughly discredited and decimated in upcoming elections.  But, it would be kind of like volunteering for chemotherapy when you don't really have cancer - sure, it'll scrub your system of pretty much everything negative, but it might kill you in the process...and for no good reason.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe, is used around the world by countries with lesser technology and standards than we have here, and it will have the added benefit of adding more long-term, high quality jobs.  It's a win-win, unless you're a liberal Democrat who wants to drive the American economy into the ground because of political correctness.

If the Dems want to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels (which, in my opinion, is completely unnecessary), then nuclear should be the natural choice.  If it's good enough for everyone else, why shouldn't it be good enough for us?

There's my two cents.

How About That? Conservatives Proven Right Again

For being the ideologues who actually base their positions on reason and facts, we conservatives really should be trusted more often. Here's yet another case in point:

Remember the salt marsh harvest mouse? We wrote about the mouse here and elsewhere. When the "stimulus" bill was being debated, Republicans charged that among the absurd pork that the bill would fund was a pet project of Nancy Pelosi's: protecting the habitat of the salt marsh harvest mice in the San Francisco Bay area. At the time, Democrats vigorously denied the charge and pointed out that the mouse was not named in the bill.

True enough: that was one of the major problems with the bill. It allocated enormous amounts of money to be spend on a department by department basis without specifying what the money was to be spent on. The real intent was mostly sub rosa. Thus, Republicans have been reduced to using Google to try to identify local government units and others that have received "stimulus" money.

Now, notwithstanding the Democrats' outraged denials that the mouse was one of the objects of their largesse, it turns out that the Republicans' suspicions were correct after all:

The Obama administration quietly announced last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

That has revived Republican criticism that the pet project was an "invisible earmark" in the massive spending bill for Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco district abuts the bay, and epitomizes the failure of stimulus spending to help an economy still shedding jobs.

"Lo and behold, the government has announced that the mouse is getting its money after all," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said while standing beside a poster of the furry varmint. "Speaker Pelosi must be so proud."

My favorite definition of wisdom is intelligence guided by experience. Looks like the Right's wisdom was proven right on this one, too, along with pretty much all of the rest of the so-called 'stimulus' waste, but we're now talking about another one? Hm, guess who's going to be right on that one, too? Go figure.

There's my two cents.

What Does Anderson Cooper Know?

CNN's Anderson Cooper, that veritable fortress of journalistic integrity and wisdom, knows about the vulgar term the Left smugly used to mock Americans who attended tea parties, like this...

...but he has no clue on how to use Reddi-Whip:

What the heck do liberal parents teach their kids, anyway?

There's my two cents.

Dem Vs. Dem

My, my, my...isn't this interesting?

I bet the GOP challenger to this guy is salivating over stuff like this!

Speaking of which, something that has gone largely unreported so far (unspeculated might be a better term for it) is the fact that the solidarity of the Democrats on these increasingly unpopular issues like the stimulus are going to put the so-called conservative Dems in a serious bind. As unemployment continues to rise, and the economy continues to sputter, those supposed fiscal conservatives in the Democrat party are going to have to explain to their constituents why they folded on their principles in favor of party loyalty.

That should help the GOP, don't you think? Should be fun to watch.

There's my two cents.

Getting Our Money Back

I'm liking Rep. Tom Price more and more every time I see him:

Jobs are being lost everyday, the deficit continues to explode and the American people are angry.

It’s now been six months since President Obama moved into the White House and in that short time, we have seen all his economic policies fall flat on their face. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 9.5%, and the stimulus package has been defined by delays, fraud, and poor management.

Every day, I talk to Americans who are terrified about the path the country is going – the spending, the borrowing, the government intervention. That’s why we have introduced a bill that attempts to save the country from economic and fiscal disaster. It’s called the “Reducing Barack Obama’s Unsustainable Deficit Act” and it makes a much needed turn in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

On May 14th of this year, the President said, “The long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can’t keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries…At some point they’re just going to get tired of buying our debt.”

While true, I think the American people are also getting tired of buying the President’s empty rhetoric.

To actually match word to deed, we have offered legislation to give Americans their money back. The first step is to cancel the spending portion of the stimulus package and recall the $460 billion that has not yet been spent. The money hasn’t gone out the door and we can still get it back.

The second step is to reclaim all unobligated TARP money so none of the remaining $150 billion can be wasted. The legislation then requires that all TARP money paid back must go directly to paying down the debt.

This simple measure will save taxpayers billions and help reduce this year’s projected $1.85 trillion deficit – by far the largest in U.S. history!

A lot of folks out there are saying they want their ‘change’ back, but the truth is Obama’s into us for a lot more than pocket change. And it’s clear buyer’s remorse has set in across this country. I, for one, think it’s time we get our money back.

Personally, my favorite part of this is how Price deliberately and specifically calls out the responsible party: Barack Obama.

It's about time.

There's my two cents.

Political Humor

Some cartoons from a mixture of sources for your enjoyment, covering a range of subjects. Enjoy:







Comic gold! Still, if I had to pick a favorite, it's probably a toss-up between these two:

Recvoery.org Recovery.org Gets A FaceLift

Get a load of this from Mary Katharine Ham:

Well, Recovery.gov (or is it Recvoery.gov?) needs more than nifty diagrams of money that may or may not have already been spent, so the tech-savviest administration ever went looking for a vendor. It succeeded in getting one to redesign the site for a mere $18 million:

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

So, it could only cost $9 million, with the option to spend up to $18 million. Raise your hand if you think the government will end up on the low end of that estimate. No one? All right. Moving on. Sunlight Labs, which bid on the job, notes that we have no idea yet what we're supposed to be getting for this $18 million. Just like the stimulus! Maybe someday we can pay $13 million for a site that will track the $18 million-dollar tracking site redesign, a year after the fact.

Apparently, the first whack at transparency fell a bit short, so now they're dumping a bunch more money into it to take a second crack at it.

Ham goes on to reveal the giant flaw in the entire concept, which was illustrated by Mike Pickett testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Reporting spending 100 days after the spending occurs does not prevent spending that is fraudulent, wasteful and abusive. Near real-time reporting is possible and should be required...

Recovery.gov should track [stimulus] spending while it is actively in the contracting process for the reasons I have mentioned above. I have heard people say that it can’t be done. And there is a natural transparency barrier. The market is highly fragmented: there are more than 89,000 Federal, State, Local and Education entities across the country and an estimated 20,000 of these will receive a portion of funds from [the stimulus].

So, even if there was a concerted effort to track stimulus spending (which there isn't), it would still fail because by the time anyone got a look at where the spending was going, it would be too late to stop it.

For a transparent accountability system, it sucks...but for a political payback system, it's brilliant.

I have a fantastic idea. I will offer the Obama administration my services in building their new website, but my price tag will be a measly $8 million, over 10% less than their own lowest estimate, and thus a great deal for taxpayers. I will also guarantee that the website will be done in half the time and be far more functional and user-friendly, too. [No, I'm not a web designer, but for $8 million, I'm pretty damned confident that I can quit my job, learn web design, and still get the job done quicker than the normal government process would take.]

Think I'll get the job?

There's my two cents.


***UPDATE***
A sharp-eyed reader offers this correction:

The government website that's being redone for $18M is www.recovery.gov. Recovery.org is a free service provided by private company Onvia, that provides detailed stimulus funding tracking at no cost to taxpayers.

Thank you!

Just Keep Spinning...Just Keep Spinning...

The merry-go-round of unemployment spinning never stops:

[T]he number of people requesting continued jobless benefits rose to a record high, indicating that the labor market remains weak.

The government said continuing claims rose to 6,883,000 in the week ended June 27, the most recent data available.

That's an increase of 159,000 from the previous week's revised total of 6,724,000 and was the highest reading since the Labor Department began keeping records in 1967.

But here's how CNN begins the report:

The number of Americans filing initial unemployment claims fell sharply last week, while those filing ongoing claims rose to another all-time high, according to government data released Thursday.

There were 565,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended July 4, down 52,000 from a revised 617,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said.

It was the lowest number since January and was below the consensus estimate of 603,000 from economists surveyed by Briefing.com.

Analysts said last week's drop was distorted by a change in the pattern of seasonal layoffs in the automotive industry.

Slublog at AoS summarizes:

In other words, the "good news" is that plants closed earlier this year than normal, so the job numbers "improved."

Let me off this merry-go-round...I think I'm going to throw up.

There's my two cents.

Cap-N-TradeTax Put On Ice...For Now

Excellent news!

President Barack Obama's push for quick action by Congress on climate change legislation suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Senate committee leading the drive delayed work on the bill until September.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer said her self-imposed deadline of early August for finishing writing a bill to combat global warming has been put off until after Congress returns from a recess that ends in early September.

"We'll do it as soon as we get back" from that break, Boxer told reporters. Asked if this delay jeopardizes chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit … we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."

But Boxer did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December, when he plans to attend an international summit on climate change in Copenhagen.

Here's Hot Air's analysis, which seems to me to be right on the money:

Two weeks ago, when the House barely pushed this through a vote, Barack Obama's poll numbers still looked good enough to imply that there may not be consequences for hobbling the economy with ludicrous taxes, fees, and penalties for energy production.  With his poll numbers eroding quickly and the electorate losing patience with high unemployment and Porkulus' failure, that doesn't seem like a safe bet any more.  As the economy continues to drag, cap-and-trade will look more like a disaster than the mythical one it purports to avoid.

The Democrats simply don't have the votes now on cap-and-trade, and unless the economy suddenly lurches back to life, the political situation will be worse in September.

How did this happen?  Well, first of all, as I've mentioned before, the madness in the House brought some much-needed exposure to it.  And, having an extra week or two for people to dig into the actual text of the bill has brought one bombshell after another.  Aside from what has already been posted on this blog, here are a few more:

EPA admits cap-and-trade will fail

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) won a startling admission from Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson. Inhofe produced an EPA chart generated last year during the Senate's debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation. The chart showed that the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhofe then asked Jackson if she agreed with the chart's conclusions. Jackson replied: "I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."

Also, at the hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he did not agree with chart. This is interesting ,since all the best science confirms Inhofe's and Jackson's conclusions. For example, a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded: "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."

Speaking of those developing nations...

G8 a bust on climate accord

Instead of agreeing to cap carbon emissions or commit to industrial limits on energy use, the Western nations instead opted to pledge not to make the Earth warmer...

What does this mean?  Absolutely nothing.  It allows the leaders of the G-8 nations to brag about reaching an agreement that literally binds them to do nothing at all.  With temperatures decreasing since 1998's peak even by the earlier, flawed NASA study, the issue could just as easily be moot.

Then there were questions about who actually owns your own home:

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

In addition to your house, it's just about everything inside your house, too:

And how will this bill affect you? It has regulations on every single aspect of your daily life. There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps. If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell.

There's an entire section on planting trees including guidelines on "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted…in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways…". Do we really need the federal government telling us where we can plant trees?

There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting in which you are given instructions about landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have. In some cases the lights must be capable of producing two different light levels (100 and 60 watt).

There are new government regulations for water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They're going to regulate water usage, and regulate wood stoves. Any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled."

But that's not all:

They're coming after your TVs, your furnaces, your blenders, you name it. And there is a requirement that CO2 output be part of the labels on appliances. More cost.

They're coming after your water usage. They'll bombard you with Nanny State ads about your water usage. They're coming after your dishwashers and washing machines, your faucets, your toilets, vis a vis "performance standards." They will also push to make sure that only professionally licensed people work on everything water. Costs go up.

They're coming after your fireplaces.

Trips to the dentists will be more expensive if you want Nitrous Oxide, or, maybe dentists will just do away with it, due to the certain coming cost of maintaining the paperwork. If Los Federales allow dentists to even keep it. And notice that last part. the Administrator can designate whatever he wants as a bad gas. Sulfer hexafluoride has many applications, and regulation will drive your costs up. Nitrogen trifluoride is used in flat screen displays. Perfluorocarbon's have many medical uses, as well as in electrical devices and cosmetics. Cost. Go. Up.

Oh, and there's this trifling little ramification, too:

If you tax carbon, you tax fertilizer and pesticides. If you tax these things, you tax food, and by no small amount. A $15/ton CO2 tax would increase fertilizer production costs directly by about $60/ton, with the cap-and-trade bill's increased transport costs inflating the burden still more. That's enough to make many farmers use less fertilizer, and less fertilizer means less food.

To get a sense of what it would mean for farmers to abandon fertilizer, it is only necessary to go to the supermarket and compare the price of the "organic" produce, grown without chemical fertilizer, to the regular produce, which, while just as nutritious, typically costs less than half as much. It is one thing for wealthy organic food buffs to voluntarily pay such high prices for their food — that is their right. But to impose such costs for basic groceries on everyone else, and particularly the poor, as part of a largely symbolic effort to try to change the weather, is self-indulgent in the extreme.

This is the kind of information that should have been investigated and widely reported before the House vote, but the Dems didn't allow that to happen.  This is precisely why.  This should be a lesson to the nation - anytime Congress wants to ram through a monster-sized bill without any exposure to the public (or even Congress), it's always -- ALWAYS -- a bad sign and should be opposed on principle at minimum.  Unfortunately, the Reps in Congress have allowed this to happen several times since Obama took office.  You know the saying: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  Hey, Reps in Congress: GET A CLUE!!!  From now on, the rule of thumb should be that if there isn't time to read and expose the bill thoroughly, you automatically vote no.

Anyway, one of the final nails in the coffin (for now) was this:

"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians." …

Senator Byrd's was one of the two sponsors of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which the senate unanimously passed, 95–0, in 1997. Byrd-Hagel stated the sense of the Senate that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Byrd-Hagel prevented Clinton from even trying to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which like the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" climate change legislation, would have put the U.S. economy at an economic disadvantage to China and India.

Byrd is, I believe, the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate, and his 1997 measure was a good, common sense piece of legislation.  It's good to see him stand by it rather than fall into the party line.

You kinda had to know it was a losing battle when they hit the patriotism hysteria button:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, believes House Republican opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they're cheering against the good ol' US of A.

"It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,"

When liberals resort to rhetoric or smears, you know they've reached the end of their factual foundation.  But, this doesn't mean it's dead and gone.  Remember, it's already passed the House, so it's just one Senate vote away from becoming law.  Some good advice:

Keep calling your Senators to tell them that a vote for cap-and-trade means adding to the unemployment lines — starting with themselves.

For all of you who called and e-mailed your Senators, well done!  Keep it up.  It's a virtual guarantee that this bill will come back later in the year.  We'll be all over it when that happens.

There's my two cents.

The Downward Trend Continues

Looks like I was right that Obama officially took responsibility for the economy a bit too soon.  Now that he's on the hook, his numbers are accelerating their downward spiral:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President's Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week...

Thirty-nine percent (39%) now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy while 43% say he is doing a poor job. Those are by far his lowest ratings yet on the economy

Gateway Pundit offers the following tidbits:

His approval index number has now dropped 38 points in less than 200 days in office.
And, that's with 1,000% support from the state-run media!

39% say Obama is doing an excellent job on the economy?
...That is pure insanity.
What sort of economic depression would we have to be experiencing before these loons come off their Kool-Aid high?

Good question.  I'm guessing such a depression doesn't exist - these people will love and support him no matter how bad things get.  Why do I say that?  Well, remember that for the 2006 tax year (the latest available), 40% of Americans paid no income tax.  These are the people who are living large off of you and me, and paying nothing back into the system.  Obama has promised them even more goodies, so why would they think he's doing anything other than excellent work?

Unless, of course, the entire country goes into hyperinflation and has an all-out, full-fledged economic collapse, leaving literally no one with any resemblance of wealth.  Then they'll get mad about it, but only because they have no one to pay for their satellite TV and cellphones anymore.  But, if we get to that point, it hardly matters, does it?

There's my two cents.

Parliamentary Smackdown

Senator Jim DeMint is one of the few good ones in Washington. This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but this clip shows DeMint playing the Democrats as hypocrites in real-time:

For those of us who aren't parliamentary procedure geeks, RedState supplies the translation of what just happened:

Sen DeMint of South Carolina is trying to put in an amendment calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve into a bill, so that it can be voted on. Senator Nelson of Nebraska promptly pops up and calls for the amendment to be removed, as not being germane: Senator Hagan of North Carolina promptly approves that call. DeMint then goes on to mention specific other clauses that would also apply, in order to get Hagan to a) admit that they fall under the same rule and b) highlight the fact that they won’t be removed, too. The fact that I think that this is funny no doubt says awful things about my sense of humor, after going on eight years being involved in following politics; but it never hurts to highlight hypocrisy.

Just another episode from the most ethical Congress in history, and the side of the aisle who pledged transparency and accountability. Eh, never mind all that garbage.

There's my two cents.

Hiding His Past

We've discussed before how Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to hide huge portions of his past. One of those is his close relationship with Bill Ayers, the proudly-admitted domestic terrorist. Gateway Pundit points out an interesting...shall we say...discrepancy in a recent Obama speech. First, watch this:

Now, read this:

Though both Barack and Michelle went to Harvard Law, they didn't overlap — she got her degree in '88 and he graduated in '91. They actually met in Chicago when he was a summer associate at a law firm in Chicago.

Actually, Barack Obama landed this amazing summer job while in school at the Sidley Austin Law Firm where terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, the wife of terrorist Bill Ayers, just happened to be working. Bill Ayers' father had pull at the firm.
Barack met his future wife Michelle at that law firm.

Such convenient memory loss, don't you think? Of course, not even his lapdog media could cover it up if Obama admitted to having close ties to Ayers. But, remember the truth: Barack Obama met Michelle through the Ayers connection, and he launched his Presidential campaign in Ayers' living room.

When someone hides their past there's usually a good reason for it, and this is no exception.

There's my two cents.

What's Up With The Crazy Libs?

Seriously! I'm beginning to believe Michael Savage when he claims that liberalism is a mental disorder because it makes them say and do things that are simply inexcusable.

Exhibit A:

A majority of young people still approve of Obama's job performance, but a majority of seniors over 64 now don't (54%). Maybe they'll die before the next election.

This is from liberal blogger Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times. Looks pretty clear he's hoping that a bunch of old people will keel over before the next election, doesn't it? Nice. Of course, that'll likely happen if Obama gets his socialized health care plan passed into law, because old people just aren't worth the cost of their treatments most of the time, and they'll get rationed out of that treatment. Too bad, so sad, just sacrifice for the greater good...

Exhibit B:

A caller to [Al Sharpton's] show suggests [that maybe Sarah Palin murdered Michael Jackson], and he says it's "interesting" and that he'll "put it out" there (to see if anyone has confirmation) and that he doesn't know if it's true or not.

Grievance politics and conspiracy theories are like chocolate and peanut butter, and Al Sharpton isn't going to stand in the way of any kooky stuff his listeners might dream up.

That would be sellin' out to whitey.

Exhibit C:

[The Duke rape case the MSM won't cover is] truly monstrous and evil.

But you won’t see wall-to-wall coverage on MSNBC or in the New York Times.

The alleged rapist is a prominent gay health researcher at Duke University.

The victim is his own adopted, five-year-old son, whom he offered up on the Internet to other molesters.

On this one, I'm not sure which is worse - the liberal who did it, or the liberals who refuse to report on it.

Exhibit D:

Sen. John Kerry added to his long list of lame joke attempts yesterday when he wished South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's disappearance on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Speaking to some business and civic leaders he had invited to Washington, Kerry quipped: "Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin."

You know, I'm pretty sure that if a Republican had said something like this, he'd be run out of Washington in less than six hours.

I could go on and on, but this is enough for now. My point is made.

There's my two cents.

OODA Or PIDDLE?

This is terrific (h/t AoS):

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — presumably speaking for her boss — doubled down on supporting erstwhile Honduran president and would-be dictator José Manuel Zelaya Rosales (a.k.a. Mel Zelaya) instead of rule of law in Honduras...

Clinton and President Barack H. Obama superficially seem to be oblivious to the sequence of events that led to Zelaya's arrest, removal from office, and voluntary exile… but are they really just misinformed? (The full timeline of events in Honduras make clear what really happened, which is the polar opposite of what our antique media tell us.)

I believe at first mere ignorance was exactly the problem: The first time the ongoing, fluid situation in Honduras was explained to Obama, I suspect that all he heard was, "Wugga-wugga liberal wigga wagga union supporter woggle boggle ousted by the military roggle doggle coup d'état." He chose to stitch this muddle together into a narrative that reads, "The liberal, democratically elected President of Honduras was overthrown by a military junta."

Alas, Obama is probably the most impulsive man ever to sit in the big chair in la Casa Blanca; he appears allergic to debate, discussion, deliberation, contemplation, thinking things through, weighing consequences, examining the pros and cons, hearing from all sides before making a decision — and of course retrospection.

By now, of course, he knows full well what really happened; but it seems he simply cannot bring himself to admit that he misunderstood so egregiously in the first five minutes — which, coincidentally, was when he committed himself to supporting Zelaya, come what may; see our earlier Big Lizards post "Old Shoes and Barackends."

The military has a term they use for the decision-making process; they call it the OODA loop, for "Observe, Orient, Decide and Act." But the Obamacle appears to have found a different route to decision making.

He Partially listens to a random aide, acts on his first Impulse, angrily and bitterly Defends whatever snap-judgment action he took, Doubles-down on that first impulse, Laughs off any subsequent, game-changing information… then furiously Echos the pronunciamentos of any allies he might have gathered on the issue, no matter who they are — or whether their own interests align with or are diametrically opposed to America's.

We can call this the Obamic PIDDLE loop, which generally morphs quite rapidly into an infinite regress.

Hit the links above for the full enjoyment.  I especially like Ace's comment:

People said that if I voted for George W. Bush, I'd get a president who was intellectually incurious, ideologically inflexible, stubbornly unwilling to admit mistakes, recklessly willing to gamble the interests of the nation in order to protect his own ego -- and they were right!

They were just off by eight years.

One might also describe Obama's PIDDLE loop as the result of his gigantic ego combined with the microscopic smallness of his experience.  Maybe.

There's my two cents.

Obama = USA? Reject That Idea!!!

Hot Air calls out liberals on a rather egregious rhetorical device (emphasis mine):

We saw glimmers of this in the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" comment, masked by the media's stampede to demonize Rush rather than look objectively at the full context of the remark.  No such mask exists now for the Barack-Obama-equals-America argument from Democrats these days, as Rep. Henry Waxman trots out the dissent-is-treason colloquy:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, believes House Republican opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they're cheering against the good ol' US of A.

"It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well," the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, "The Waxman Report."

This is more than just stupid, which it is by the truckload.  It's also dangerous.  Making opposition to any politician's policies or actions a case for treason amounts to an extension of the Louis XIV principle, L'etat, c'est moi, or "I am the state."  It's also the same idea behind the fuehrerprinzip that allowed Adolf Hitler untrammeled power in the Nazi regime, and any number of other tyrants, great and petty.  It is an essential construct of fascism, tyranny, and elitism.

Of course, this is made all the more hilarious because of the numerous accusations from the Left that dissent against George Bush was the highest form of patriotism.  For instance, Helen Thomas wrote about the same Louis XIV quote in declaring Bush a dictator in all but name because he exercised his authority to prosecute a war authorized by Congress:

In public appearances this week, Bush defended his program of domestic spying without court approval, citing the inherent war powers of the presidency under the U.S. Constitution.

The president points to his status as commander-in-chief and the resolution — approved by Congress three days after the 9/11 attacks — authorizing him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorists.

It is an obvious overreach of presidential prerogative; thin justification for what amounts to a snooping foray against Americans and others in the U.S.

It all smacks of France's Louis XIV's famous dictum: "L'etat, c'est moi"— "I am the state."

For all of the wailing and accusations that Republicans challenged the patriotism of Democrats during the Bush administration, I don't recall a single incident in which a Republican member of Congress said that opposition to Bush's policies amounted to opposition to the USA.  It seems that we had an eight-year case of pre-projection, and the L'etat, c'est moi crowd were the Democrats all along.

The rest of us understand that we live in a republic, with democratic processes, without anointed leaders and cults of personality.  Maybe the Democrats should learn that, too.

I refer you to the 2Cents mantra at the top right of this page to hear the screechy 'highest form of patriotism' for yourself.  We need to soundly and thoroughly reject the idea that speaking out against Obama or the Democrats is somehow being unpatriotic or being against the US in general.  This is one premise that absolutely must not be accepted, or all else is lost!

Obama's governing philosophy -- state control of everything -- is the product of the same tyrannical ideas that spawned some of the worst regimes in history.  The idea is nothing new, but apparently a whole lot of Americans still had a lot to learn about it in November.  We can hope that the learning process is now fully underway, and will reach fruition before the destruction of liberty and prosperity in America.

There's my two cents.

The Cost Of Controlling The Press

Color me un-shocked:

I guess he's getting a good rate of return. Accuracy in the Media notes:

Barack Obama's White House is spending more than $80,000 a week to staff its old and new media offices. Add the price of speechwriters and the White House communications tab reaches nearly $100,000 a week, or nearly $5 million a year-and that is for salaries alone.

That is a significant increase from the Bush Administration.

Then there's this:

Obama also quadrupled the size of the public liaison staff. According to the last Bush administration staff salary report, President Bush employed three people in his liaison office at a cost of $335,500.

In other words, Obama is not just staging press events and staging questions, he's bought his own media operation to bypass the press altogether.

And their response?

Fawning adoration. He is, after all, making their job easier by writing the articles for them.

The part that really galls me is that I'm paying for this one-sidedness with my tax dollars.

The root problem here, of course, is that Obama is dumping money into propagandizing his message through the primary communication channels of the nation.  Now, let's connect some dots.  He's already spending fat cash to buy off the media, and they're readily complying.  His message (via the bought-off media) is most definitely a big part of why he won the election and continues to retain his high (though rapidly slipping) poll ratings - if Obama had had to face the kind of scrutiny that most Presidential candidates undergo, I don't believe he would have survived past the Iowa caucus.  But he didn't, so he now inhabits the White House, and to continue his mission of re-making America, he's going to need to continue buying off the media, so where is he going to continue getting all that fat cash?  Hmmm...

How about TARP?  How about the non-stimulating 'stimulus'?  How about his annual budget?  How about his cap-n-tax bill and health care 'reform' bills?  All of these are filled with massive amounts of pork that are essentially paybacks, buy-offs, and favor money to various constituency groups that have supported him in the past (and are likely to support him in the future).  His almost total lack of legitimate transparency and accountability on all of these measures proves that he doesn't really want too much scrutiny, and it's not hard to guess why.  With proper scrutiny and public exposure, none of these bills (with the possible exception of the first TARP) would have any chance of passing into law.  Connecting these dots reveals the picture: he's using our own tax dollars to fund our political opponents...and Hoyer just affirmed it.

This is as we've been predicting for months, and one of the reasons we need to fight these hysteria-driven, no-time-to-read, gigantic spending bills.

There's my two cents.

Why Read The Bill When You Can Vote On It Instead?

As a responsible adult, those words should scare you.  Even scarier is the fact that Congress lives by them:

Steny Hoyer reveals more than his colleagues probably wanted him to about the way they care to operate:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. "I'm laughing because a) I don't know how long this bill is going to be, but it's going to be a very long bill," he said.

This is no surprise to anyone who's paid attention (as you have, by reading this blog), but it's very interesting to hear a prominent Democrat leader actually admit it out loud.  Sadly, it illustrates the point that the democratic process is dying in America.  Michelle Malkin sums it up this way:

Obama lied, transparency died.

The joke's on you. And it keeps getting more and more expen$$$$ive every day.

This tactic has been used on every one of Obama's major initiatives, and there is no reason to think it won't continue happening until the American people demand a stop to it.

Or vote the Dems out of leadership.  That would work, too.

There's my two cents.

Going Down...

Is the rubber finally meeting the road with the American people?  It certainly appears so:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –5.

The number who strongly disapprove inched up another point to the highest level measured to date and the overall Approval Index is at the lowest level yet for Obama...

GP also includes some other bright and cheery links indicating further economic decline:

Why Unemployment Could Hit 14%.

The Labor Market Is Worse Than You Think.

U.S. Workers Hired at Slowest Rate in 9 Years.

Stocks Hit 10-Week Low.

Consumer Loan Delinquencies Rise to Record Levels.

The key here is to realize who is responsible: Barack Obama.  He's still trying to pass the buck to George W. Bush, but the fact is that Obama and the Democrats are the ones who've spent trillions of dollars in just five months, exploding the deficit and national debt, and burying multiple generations of as-yet-unborn Americans under massive financial obligations.  The question of who is responsible is the crux of the matter, and it needs to be squarely confronted and explained truthfully.

Also on the decline is another key economic indicator, consumer confidence:

(ABC News)

Consumer confidence is nearing a new record low.
Yid With Lid reported this from ABC News:

Consumer confidence is within striking distance of its worst in weekly polls since late 1985 for the third straight week.

The ABC News Consumer Comfort Index stands at -52 on its scale of +100 to -100, 2 points from the lowest on Jan. 25. The index has spent the last three weeks below -50, territory it's seen only 14 times in over 1,220 weeks of polls, with eight of those coming this year alone.

Bottom line: the Obama economy is failing.

Celebrating his first 100 days in office, President Barack Obama told the American people: "One hundred days ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in half a century, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery act in history…One hundred days later, we are already seeing results." And he's right, we are. Unemployment has risen to 9.5%, stocks fell to their lowest level in 10 weeks on Tuesday, and consumer credit delinquencies have hit a record high. Responding to the obvious failure of the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus package, some liberals in the House and Senate are calling for a second (really the third when you count President Bush's 2008 effort) stimulus. How big of a second stimulus? Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker told Politico: "To my mind it's pretty obvious we need another stimulus package, probably a lot bigger than the last one."

To be fair, the Obama administration itself is not yet ready to admit their first $787 billion stimulus package failed. Both Vice President Joe Biden and Obama Council of Economic Advisers member Austan Goolsbee recently said it was premature to discuss crafting another stimulus. But outside adviser to President Obama Laura Tyson told an audience in Singapore yesterday that the stimulus package was indeed "a bit too small" and that the administration should consider a second effort. According to Bloomberg, Tyson then stressed "The U.S. needs to communicate its determination to reduce the annual shortfall once the economy recovers." Unfortunately the Obama administration is sending no such credible signals.

The numbers don't lie, and here is the story they tell:

• Obama's "stimulus" bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush's first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion).
• Under Obama's budget, the national debt will increase by more in two years than it did under President Bush in eight years.
• Obama's spending will reach 24.5 percent of GDP, far higher than the post-war average of about 20.2 percent.

Ignoring Obama's lofty rhetoric and focusing on the hard numbers, investors are demanding higher interest rates to soak up the tremendous flows of debt coming out of the Treasury. This will mean higher interest rates for consumer loans, mortgage loans, business loans, etc. The debt-based Obama economic stimulus plan has become a major drag on economic recovery, just as expected.

The President and the Congress must realize that world investors will not be swayed by new budget rules or other posturing. They want to see the economy strengthen while the deficit comes down now, and fast. The solution is to set aside all the new spending proposals and start cutting spending fast. Otherwise we're going to have double digit unemployment for a long time to come.

Clearly, the hope-n-change is starting to meet reality, and the American people aren't nearly as enthused about it now as they were in November.  Unfulfilled promises, rising unemployment, and massive debt will do that.

Unfortunately, it's not going to get better quickly.  I once heard an economist describe the American economy as a giant tanker ship with a very small rudder.  It just takes a long time for changes of direction to become visible, and once they do, we often find we've over-corrected.  Obama has changed direction so far to the left that now, as people are beginning to see the results, it is too late to stop it easily or quickly, and we'll have to deal with his over-correction.  By the time we start feeling the full effects of all his spending -- not to mention the coming inflation -- it's going to get downright brutal, and we'll just have to gut through it as best we can.

The one hope we have left is the 2010 election - remember, only about 30-40% of the stimulus money is supposed to be spent by that time, so if the GOP gets back into power (and gets its head straight), they could put a stop to a lot of the worst spending that has already happened, and curtail everything going forward (since all spending bills are supposed to originate in the House).  Hopefully it'll happen, and hopefully it'll be enough to stop the worst damage.  After all, a scary near miss is far better than actually hitting the rocks.

There's my two cents.

Is Ohio Turning Red Again?

Let's hope so:

For those wondering when the American people are going to start holding President Obama accountable for the weak economy, the answer could be: very soon. Via Ben Smith, I see this new Quinnipiac poll, which found that Obama's favorability rating has dropped to 49 percent in what is considered one of the most reliable political bellwether states in the nation. More telling, voters there now disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy by a 48 percent to 46 percent margin.

Says one of the pollsters:

"The economy in Ohio is as bad as anywhere in America. These numbers indicate that for the first time voters have decided that President Barack Obama bears some responsibility for their problems," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Until now voters have given President Obama high ratings on the economy, blaming former President George W. Bush for their problems. They might be taking out their frustration on President Obama, possibly deciding that the change he promised has not come as quickly as they expected."

"Ohio historically has been the prototypical swing state. One of the reasons Barack Obama won the presidency by such a wide margin is that he carried Ohio with 52 percent of the vote and captured the lion's share of independent votes," Brown added.

"Now, by a 48 - 46 percent margin, Ohio independent voters give the President a failing grade on the economy. These numbers indicate that he may be losing, at least for now, some of those who voted for him in November and should be an indication to the White House that his honeymoon with the voters may be ending."

It's obviously very premature to come to any certain conclusions about an election that is still 18 months away. But...this is a very good sign for the GOP (if they get their act together and mount a massive political counter-assault, that is) and bad, bad news for Obama.

Of course, it could just be a reflection of the real feelings of actual voters. You know, once you filter out all the ACORN and friend-of-Obama fraud.

There's my two cents.

Put Down The Kool-Aid...Now Pick It Up...Now Put It Down...

This has got to be confusing to all the Kool-Aid drinkers out there who fervently believe whatever Obama says at the moment he says it:

MIXED-MESSAGE #1: No Government-Run Health Care Option Vs. Government-Run Health Care Option…

TUESDAY: In An Interview With The Wall Street Journal, White House Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel Signals That The Administration Is Not Committed To A Government-Run Health Care Plan. “It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday. ‘The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,’ he said in an interview. ‘The goal is non-negotiable; the path is’ negotiable.” (Laura Meckler And Janet Adamy, “White House Open To Deal On Public Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/7/09)

TUESDAY: President Obama Issues A Follow-Up Statement Reiterating His Commitment To A Government-Run Health Care Plan. "I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals." (The White House, “Statement From The President On Health Care Reform,” Press Release, 7/7/09)

MIXED-MESSAGE #2: “Misread” The Economy And Stimulus Disappointment Vs. Wouldn’t Do Anything Differently…

SUNDAY: Vice President Joe Biden Says “We Misread How Bad The Economy Was.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 7/5/09)

SUNDAY: House Democrat Leader Steny Hoyer Says He Is “Disappointed” By The “Stimulus.” FOX NEWS’ CHRIS WALLACE: “Congressman Hoyer, can you honestly say you're satisfied with the stimulus?” REP. STENY HOYER: “I don't think anybody can honestly say that we're satisfied with the results so far of the stimulus. But we believe the stimulus was absolutely essential. Mark Zandi, as you know, who was one of McCain's economic advisers, says it's going to create 2 million jobs by the end of next year, and...” WALLACE: “But why hasn't it done more faster?” REP. HOYER: Well, we're disappointed that it hasn't done more faster. John and I were talking earlier about getting money out more quickly. We need to do that. We're disappointed.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 7/5/09)

TUESDAY: President Obama Says “There’s Nothing That We Would Have Done Differently” Concerning The Stimulus. “Turning to domestic issues, the president said that when Vice President Joe Biden recently told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that the White House ‘misread’ the economy when planning the stimulus package in January, the president said that ‘what Vice President Biden was referring to was simply the fact that when we passed he stimulus, we hadn’t gotten the full report of the first quarter contractions in the economy that turned out to be way worse than anybody had anticipated.’ But the president denied that his economic prescription was wrong because the diagnosis was incomplete. ‘There’s nothing that we would have done differently,’ he said. ‘We needed a stimulus and we needed a substantial stimulus.’” (Jake Tapper, “An Interview With President Obama,” ABC News, 7/7/09)

MIXED-MESSAGE #3: Green Light To Israel Or No Green Light…

SUNDAY: Vice President Biden Says It Is Up To Israel What They Do Regarding Iran. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands. Is that the right approach?” VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: “Look, Israel can determine for itself – it's a sovereign nation – what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Whether we agree or not?” VP BIDEN: “Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?” VP BIDEN: “Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 7/5/09)

TUESDAY: President Obama Says “Absolutely Not” To Giving Israel The Green Light To Strike Iran. “The United States is ‘absolutely not’ giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday. ‘We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East,’ Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.” (Ed Henry, “Obama: No Green Light For Israel To Attack Iran,” CNN, 7/7/09)

We know the Obamessiah's faithful will dutifully think whatever he wants them to think, but these mixed messages sure make it tough to divine what that is! It's a good thing doublethink reigns supreme in the Democrat party nowadays, or else this could present a big problem. Just as a reminder of doublethink:

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the two thousand Eurasian war criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. ... The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried onto the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled it and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. ... Within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the next of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

The problem here, of course, is that there is no Goldstein on which to blame the sabotage - these mixed messages are all coming from Big Brother himself.

Oh, what's a liberal to do??

There's my two cents.

Honduras, Russia, China

Let's go around the world with the Obamessiah.

Honduras
Obama still isn't acting like the leader of the free world regarding Honduras. To the contrary, he's taking the side of the tyrant:

Honduran democracy protesters urged Obama not to join with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro in siding with ousted President Zelaya.

Message to Obama. "Obama, help us to defend our democracy, constitution and freedom. Do not support the following Chavez." (Photo by Leonel Estrada- El Heraldo)

Wrong again.
Barack Obama explained why he is backing the ousted thug in Honduras during his speech today in Russia.
ABC News reported:

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

The president’s remarks came in the midst of a speech in which discussed “America’s interest in democratic governments that protect the rights of their people” and supported Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s call for judicial reforms in his country.

Of course, Obama forgot to mention this part:

The military, judiciary and Honduran congress removed the country’s president because he was attempting to illegally extend his tenure in office. – attempting a bloodless coup – in usurpation of that country’s constitution. The people of Honduras – in the form of that country’s military, judiciary and congress – stood up to tyranny by exorcising the Marxist cancer that threatened that nation’s sovereignty. Yet, the leader of the free world – and his secretary of state – sided with the tyrannical, calling for the reinstatement of ousted despot who tried to destroy their democracy.

Instead, Barack Obama joined with Latin American Marxists Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez and rallied around ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this week.
What a disgrace.


More... Jake Tapper added this additional information:

The military removal of Zelaya as president – and the appointment of Roberto Micheletti as interim President by the Honduran legislature – came after Zelaya attempted to rewrite his nation’s constitution to end term limits to continue his rule, despite the fact that term limits in the constitution is one of eight “firm articles” that cannot be changed.

After the Honduran Legislature refused to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya called for a referendum to do so, which the Honduran Supreme Court and Attorney General declared unconstitutional. Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings. Acting on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, soldiers arrested Zelaya on June 28 and sent him into exile in Costa Rica.

For some reason Obama omitted these facts in his explanation

He keeps talking about the people electing their government, but the reality on the ground is that the 'ousted' President is a tyrant that was shredding the Honduran constitution, and the people have had enough of it. I guess that's why Obama feels some kinship with Zelaya, though. Obama fervently believes in shredding our Constitution, too.


Russia
Obama is in the midst of a trip to Russia to discuss the voluntary bilateral unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons, among other things. Of course, he's making about as much sense in Russia as he is in regard to Honduras:

Obama told Russian students today that, "A great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries."
Except of course if that country is Honduras or Israel-- In that case it is OK to meddle and treat them like chess pieces.
Reuters reported:

While extending the hand of friendship on cutting nuclear weapons and dealing jointly with North Korea and Iran, Obama also addressed the hangovers from the Soviet Union by warning that empires should not treat other countries as chess pieces.

"In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries," Obama said. "The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over."

When was the last time we've seen a leader contradict himself so often in the same speech?

It sounds like the Russian youth were not so impressed either. They applauded only at the end of the 31-minute speech.

UPDATE: Drudge points out another contradiction:

4:15 AM: OBAMA SAYS FUTURE DOES NOT BELONG TO THOSE WHO GATHER ARMIES OR PLANT MISSILES...
7:45 AM: Suspected US missiles hit militants...

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're still hitting militants in the War on Terror Man-Caused Disasters! I just think that it would be nice for once if Obama was held accountable for his words. Yeah, I know...silly me.


China
Michael Goldfarb reports on another brutal crackdown that Obama can ignore:

The death count is at 156, while the Chinese security forces have arrested more than a thousand protesters. Beijing’s response has been true to form: block Internet access, keep reporters out, put down the protests by any means, and blame foreign forces such as D.C.-based Uighur human rights activist Rebiya Kabeer. This is about the same game plan that China followed last year when Tibetans protested their maltreatment.

In the short term, China’s approach works. Thanks to China’s propaganda machine, many if not most Chinese people believe that foreign forces are busily at work trying to “split” and humiliate China. China thus maintains the support of its own citizens. Moreover, for now Beijing does not have Washington to worry about. The Obama administration’s China policy seems to be focused on begging China to keep buying our ever expanding debt. And, the Politburo can count on President Obama to downplay human rights concerns, lest they stand in the way of his “can’t we all just get along” foreign policy.

But what about the long term? There are tens of millions of Muslims in China who are fed up with religious persecution and second-class citizenship. If China does have a terror problem, continuing to anger its Muslim population is not the way to confront it. And, with a violent uprising last year in Tibet, scores of weekly protests within China, and now the Uighur demonstrations, can we really call China a stable country?

These Chinese 'protesters' are Uighurs...radical Muslims. Hey, wait a second...I seem to recall another story about radical Muslim Uighurs from not long ago. What was it, what was it...? Oh, that's right, Obama released several of them from Gitmo and serenaded them off to a life of luxury in the Bahamas, courtesy of the American taxpayer!

I can't imagine why he wants to ignore more Chinese Uighur unrest, can you?

There's my two cents.

Get Ready For Another Non-Stimulating Stimulus!

Gateway Pundit sums it up beautifully: "These thieves are not only going to put your children and grandchildren in debt. They're going to put your great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren in debt, too."


You can keep striking those matches, Mr. President...but until you find some that aren't soaked in Kool-Aid, they're not going to work.

Reuters:

U.S. leaders should be open to the possibility of a second stimulus package to jolt the economy out of a recession still causing job losses, House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday.

But in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid was more skeptical of the need for more stimulus spending -- an idea that rattled markets fearful that the economy is far from well and corporate earnings could suffer.

President Barack Obama led the charge for a two-year $787 billion stimulus package that his fellow Democrats who control Congress pushed through the House and Senate in February and he has argued it would help create or save up to 4 million jobs.

Despite continued large job losses, both Reid and Hoyer -- who spoke at separate news conferences -- said not enough time had passed since first package was approved for it to have the full impact on the U.S. economy, which has been in a recession since December 2007.

"It's certainly too early right now ... to say it's not working," Hoyer said of the initial stimulus package. "In fact we believe it is working. We believe there are a lot of people who otherwise would have been laid off, lost their jobs, who haven't done that."

Their logic on this is absolutely ridiculous. Allow me to demonstrate. We had been thinking of finishing our basement. Any reasonable estimate of that project would be at least $25,000, probably more depending on what we wanted to do with it. For various reasons, we decided to push the project off for a while longer, and instead we bought new furniture for the living room, a much smaller purchase.

Now, you tell me...did I save money?

No. Anyone with a quarter of a working brain can see that I did not, in fact, save money because I didn't do the basement. Rather, I still spent money because I bought furniture. Just because I could have spent more doesn't mean I actually saved what I didn't spend. Get it?

This is exactly the standard they're applying to saved or created jobs - just because they think it might have been worse, they're crediting themselves for saving jobs!

It's ridiculous.

And now they're going to throw more taxpayer money down the craphole. You know, I would think that their own admissions of being clueless and botching the first stimulus would pretty much negate any credibility they have when proposing another one.

I suppose it all depends on how much Kool-Aid is still being passed around.

There's my two cents.

Oh, Yeah...TARP Will Turn A Profit!

Remember how the Democrats assured us that if their TARP was pushed through last fall that the American taxpayer would actually turn a profit and come out ahead in the long run? Well, you can forget that promise, too, at least if Barney Frank has anything to say about it:

Bailout nation continues. Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York writes up Barney Frank's plan to spend dividends from TARP before the taxpayers can get their grubby hands on them. The idea was that bailed-out financial institutions would hand over shares of preferred stock that paid a dividend for the government in exchange for the TARP money. If the dividends were paid promptly and the institutions repaid the TARP funds, it would theoretically be possible for the federal government to turn a profit.

According to the GAO, the federal government has received over $6 billion dividends payments through June 12. Under the original TARP legislation, such money was supposed to be used to pay down the debt. Under Barney Frank's "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009," it will instead go to Democratic housing programs and community activists, potentially including ACORN -- bad ideas that will get worse if bailout recipients increasingly don't pay dividends or repay the TARP funds themselves.

The Democrats simply can't stand the idea of you spending your own money. Remember, they genuinely believe they know how to spend your money better than you do:

You ignorant rube, you.

There's my two cents.