Christine O’Donnell is making a mockery of running for public office.  She has no real history, no real success in  any kind  of business and what that says to my generation is one day you can just wake up and run for Senate no matter how lack of experience you have [sic].

This little tirade has been replayed numerous times on several networks.  But nobody seems to have pointed out that one could have said exactly the same thing about Barack Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate.  He had no success, indeed no experience at all in any kind of business.  His experience in so-called community organizing obviously did not transfer to the challenges of executive leadership.

Obama’s talent is delivering speeches that stir emotion without saying anything specific.  He used that talent to win a U.S. Senate seat.  He functioned as a Senator for one year before embarking on his Presidential campaign.

After interviewing President Obama the New York Times reports that he “realized too late” that, quoting the President:

There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.

In February, 2009 four days after Congress voted to pass the giant Obama stimulus, that we were told would employ millions on construction projects, I wrote “The Stimulus Hoax: Flimflam & Spin. We had just endured weeks of endless chants from the political-media establishment about “shovel ready projects.”  Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Obama Advisor David Axelrod…was asked how Americans would know if the so-called stimulus package was working and how to measure it.  Axelrod responded…

Well, I think that there’ll be signs of activity very quickly. As you know, the package will help fund infrastructure programs and other programs that are ready to go around the country.

Let’s deal with the myth that there are infrastructure projects that are “ready to go” or “shovel ready.”   The first step in a government infrastructure project is to appropriate the funds to pay for it.  After funding is secured the following steps begin:

1. Complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR): 6 to 24 months.
2. Respond to protests and lawsuits from so-called “environmental groups” that always attempt to derail every construction project before it gets started: months to years.
3. Complete planning and engineering and in some cases acquire land:  Months to years
4. Conduct the convoluted government bid process to select a contractor to do the work: Up to a year.

Steps 1 – 4 cannot possibly be completed in less than 24 months and usually take a lot longer.  These steps rarely begin until Congress appropriates funds for the project because there usually is no money to pay for them before the appropriation.

Axelrod predicted “signs of activity” rather than listing any construction projects because he knows no workers will be hired and no work other than paperwork will begin for a long time.

If there were any “shovel ready” projects, where workers could be hired immediately, the Obama Administration and the media cheer-leaders would be telling us about them – over and over.  Camera crews would be sent to project sites to interview the contractors and the smiling workers, excited about getting started.

Having been right back then doesn’t feel particularly triumphant today.  This was not top secret information 20 months ago.  Anyone who had ever worked for either government or a government contractor – millions of people – knew “shovel-ready” was a fraud, intended to deceive.  Apparently Obama was deceived right along with naive Senators, naive reporters and naive citizens.

The Presidency has become a Trillion dollar on-the-job training program, slowly dragging a reluctant Barack Obama from blissfully ignorant, narcissistic, community organizer and petulant complainer, toward an elementary understanding of how the real world works.

One wonders what other ignorant or naive assumptions we’ll eventually learn this President brought to his self-assigned agenda of “transforming America.”

;;

Print - Email to a Friend - Share:

]]> http://libertyworks.com/same-as-it-ever-was/feed/ 0 http://libertyworks.com/7775/ http://libertyworks.com/7775/#comments Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:23:55 +0000 BoomerJeff http://libertyworks.com/7775/ Liberty Works investigative reporter Nicki snapped this photo of the free market at work, liquidating surplus inventory of out-of-fashion products, at a rural gas station along Interstate 5 in Central California.

text

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  What I mean by that is its’ an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.

That bit of political philosophy, bespoken in the after-glow of an election victory turned out to be one of the guiding principles of the Obama Administration.  The financial crisis became the pretext for unprecedented government expansion and spending.

On Thursday President Obama held a press conference to discuss what is becoming a huge negative for his administration, failed efforts to stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.  His opening statement included emphatic assertions that the government, not BP, has been in charge of the whole operation “since day one.”  His conclusion displayed the Emanual Doctrine:

More than anything else this economic and environmental tragedy – and its a tragedy – underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean and renewable sources of energy.  Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment it will create a new home grown American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.

The only problem Mr. President, is that despite decades of government subsidies and regulations intended to coerce us to buy non-petroleum energy sources, the technology is still not mature.  By far the most cost effective and reliable sources of energy are oil, natural gas and coal.  There are plenty of wealthy companies and individuals around the world who would gladly invest billions into production of a reliable, cost effective, alternative energy source.  They will do so the moment one exists.  In the meantime, only government has the billions to waste on blue sky energy dreams that never become reality.

Then Obama got to the point:

We’ve talked about doing this for decades and we’ve made significant strides over the last year when it comes to investing in renewable energy and energy efficneicy.  The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would jumpstart a permanent transition to a clean energy economy.  And there’s currently a plan in the senate, a plan that was developed with ideas from democrats and republicans that would achieve the same goal.  If nothing else this disaster should serve as a wakeup call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation.

This was about Cap and Trade, the legislation that he intentionally did not name because it has already developed a bad reputation.  The “Cap” part refers to a cap on the total amount of conventional, oil-gas-coal energy American companies would be allowed to produce.  In other words, government would create an artificial energy shortage.

Cap and Trade would also require all energy producers and most businesses and even some churches to buy permission from the government to produce or consume energy.  It would be a gusher of cash for government and a dead weight cost on every business and every household in America.

Cap and Trade died in the Senate months ago.  But Obama hopes to keep this crisis from going to waste, even as it stains his Presidency, by using it to revive Cap and Trade.

The first time we heard  that word “jumpstart” from President Obama was in the first week of his Administration.  He promised that the $787 Billion “stimulus” an immense government power grab born of the financial crisis would immediately, in his words “jumpstart job creation and long  term growth.”  The stimulus obviously failed to live up to the promise.  There are now 3.4 million fewer private sector jobs than there were back in January, 2009 when Obama made that promise.  Federal employment has grown however, by 187,000 jobs over the same period.

Give Obama credit for tenacity.  Even as the oil spill has generated bitter criticism of his administration from both left and right, even as he tries to appear actively engaged and overcome the perception that he and his people are incompetent, he begins the campaign to exploit the crisis.

…reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

From the reaction over at Twitter it appears a lot of people, some gleefully, believe this is the story that will politically disable Barack Obama.

Our first reaction is skepticism.  The Enquirer did scoop everyone else on the John Edwards affair.  And after years of denial, Edwards no longer disputes their reports.  But that was the rare exception.  Most of their stories are pure fantasy.  Space aliens and such.

And, why would it cost “more than $1 million” for the testimony of a witness?  And if that much were paid, wouldn’t it be convincing evidence of false testimony?

Even if the allegation is true, a final, undisputed conclusion to that effect is unlikely.  Instead, if the story “grows legs” the media will find all evidence and testimony to be tainted, most voters will become sick of hearing about it, and then it will fade away, unresolved.

We on the limited government side run the risk diminishing our own arguments, just when we’re starting to gain traction in popular opinion.  For example, government run health care is a bad idea, not because Obama had an affair – if he did – but because it forces us all to surrender individual liberty and autonomy and submit to bureaucratic intrusion in our lives, all in exchange for the promise of a health care Utopia that can not and will not be delivered.

We must convince a majority of voters that big government is Unconstitutional and that the founders tried to prevent this outcome for good reasons.  We won’t succeed in that effort if we appear to be more passionate about rumors of a sex scandal.

As tempting as it may be to some to pursue this story, we hope nobody does.  Let’s spend our energy promoting our principles, not chasing rumors about a six year old affair that likely didn’t even happen, can’t be proven if it did, and is irrelevant to the desperate struggle for liberty we are now engaged in.

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government…I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Greatest achievements of this administration?  Astounding!

Most of the communication from the Obama White House is deception, targeting people who don’t have the time or interest to dig into every issue and root out the truth.  But this creates a disingenuous category of it’s own.  The truth is that in 2007 and 2008 Then Senator Obama used his office to try to cause the Iraq operation to end in failure.

When the surge strategies that ultimately succeeded were beginning Senator Obama could have seized the opportunity to be an idealistic, visionary leader in the cause of liberty for the Iraqi people, and victory for America.  Instead, he deferred to the defeatist dogma of those in his party who desperately wanted failure in Iraq, to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster. In a TV interview Candidate Obama fell back on the simplistic chants of the anti-war Left:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the surge strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Obama repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat.

As for Joe Biden, let’s not forget his idea, to Divide Iraq into three or four countries, one for each ethnic sub-group.  Thankfully our troops were never ordered to facilitate that train wreck.

Is there a word strong enough to properly characterize Biden’s chutzpa in now the success of the Iraq operation for Obama?

55 second video

By the way, the establishment media that relentlessly lampooned Bush lingo was silent.

One wonders how does Obama pronounce the favorite “corps” of the left?

• Americorps
  
• Peace Corps
  

MARCH 13, 2009

Last month, when  President Obama and the Democrats were rushing frantically to pass a bill authorizing the government to borrow and spend an unprecedented $800 Billion, the President used the word “catastrophe” several times to describe the future without all that borrowing and spending.  The media and most of Congress marched along with grave warnings of another “Great Depression” if the bill didn’t pass.

Last week President Obama was asked about the disastrous performance of the Stock market since he was elected, and especially since he began to announce his policy initiatives.  The Dow had lost almost third of its value since election day.  His response was…

What I’m looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing.

And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you’re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong.

That was then.  This week the market was up three out of five days, and suddenly, the Government-Media establishment has spun around from grim pessimism to sparkling optimism!

This week, President Obama transformed from skeptic who ignored “the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market” to avid market watcher. The establishment media clambered onto the Obama optimism bandwagon with cheery talking heads making the rounds of networks and cable channels.  The new message is that after only 30 days after Congress acted, the $800 Billion of borrowed money is already “working!”

In as much as the President and the Democrats in Congress insisted that the stimulus would immediately, the very next week, start “saving jobs,” we  offer this report of Unemployment Insurance Claims, representing recently laid off workers, just to balance the presentation.

2009 Weekly Unemployment Claims

This scripture, Isaiah 9:6, is meant to be extravagant praise of Jesus, the Messiah, the priceless gift from God to humanity:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Some of the “reports” in the media look more like this scripture than anything that could be called “news.”  The downside for Obama is no mere human could possibly measure up to the expectations the media have planted in the minds of voters.

But before the election the national media dutifully denied  voters any review of the rich history of dirty politics in Obama’s home town and political indoctrination center.

The Media anointed candidate won the Presidency and Time Magazine was still caught up in the euphoria a few days later when it published a piece by Amy Sullivan called “How the Chicago way Helped Obama.”

Below are some choice excerpts.  Of course news that until this week  Governor Blagovech was offering Obama’s Senate seat up for auction to the highest bidder makes these excerpts even more laughable than when they were written.

…since Barack Obama’s election, conservatives have been busy warning that…dozens of Chicago advisers, officials and fundraisers have helped grease Obama’s ascent from community organizer to President-elect.

John McCain trotted out a similar attack against Obama in the last few months of the campaign…But [it] didn’t resonate with voters.

The jab was based on an outdated caricature of Chicago…

What McCain and fellow Republicans didn’t (and probably still don’t) understand is that being from Chicago is now an asset for a presidential candidate, not a liability.

It’s possible, due to the intense efforts of the national media to ensure that most Americans were not informed of Obama’s political heritage, that being from Chicago might indeed have been an asset.  Candidate Obama could benefit from the services of a corrupt political machine, while the media swaddled his naive, young supporters in emotional slogans, masking the stench.

The problem with trying to taint Obama with the label of “Chicago politics” is that most Americans no longer make the association with corruption.

Since Obama’s media fans understood that “most Americans”  know only what the networks and newspapers decide they should know, they created a fumigated, political bio of Barack Obama deleting any references to corruption in Chicago.

These days Chicago is known for blending working-class kitsch…with cosmopolitan shopping and restaurants on Michigan Avenue. Its graceful mix of cutting-edge, environmentally conscious modern architecture and classic parks and buildings has actually given it a reputation as a model of a 21st-century metropolis.

Obviously, appealing buildings and parks do not cleanse corrupt, local politicians.  But, in a typical Big Media diversion, the author inserted her emotional reaction to the city’s ambiance as if it were somehow relevant.

After the Blagovech revelations, this final excerpt is so preposterous it stands alone with no need for further comment.

…for now, Republicans might need to look for a new line of attack. With Obama on his way to the White House, the [Chicago bred] Axelrod-Emanuel-Podesta trio by his side and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin the new center of influence in the U.S. Senate, Chicago Democrat appears to be a winning label.

Barack Obama owes a lot to the voters of the anti-war Left, who responded enthusiastically when he denounced and promised to abandon the Iraq operation.  They were his margin of victory in the early caucus and primary contests that ensured his nomination.

Throughout the campaign Candidate Obama appealed to the emotions that united the Democrat Party’s diverse coalition of Leftist causes: hatred of George Bush, and hatred of Iraq.  A thousand times he denounced the Iraq operation as “failed policy” and promised he would order a scheduled, 16 month withdrawal, regardless of any objections from military advisers.  He said John McCain would bring “more of the same” failed Iraq policy.

But today, President-Elect Obama has picked current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, an outspoken opponent of his timetable for withdrawal, to continue serving in the new administration. In his announcement he said of Robert Gates:

Two years ago he took over the pentagon at a difficult time…

Well yes!  Gates’ first action was to order radical changes in strategy and tactics for the Iraq operation, including military, political and economic initiatives, plus a temporary increase in troop strength that would become known as “The Surge.”  Nobody is more to blame for making this “a difficult time” than Barack Obama.

When Senator Obama could have seized the  opportunity to be an idealistic, visionary leader in the cause of Liberty, and American success, he deferred to the defeatist dogma of those in his party who needed failure in Iraq, to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster. Then-Senator Obama fell back on the simplistic chants of the anti-war Left in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Obama repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat. Throughout the campaign he promised that if elected he would withdraw all combat troops on a predetermined schedule, regardless of the consequences.

Fortunately for America, President Bush and Secretary Gates prevailed over Senator Obama and his allies in Congress and now America is positioned to withdrawal from Iraq in victory, leaving behind a brand new democracy in the heart of the middle east.

Today, even as he renominated Robert Gates to continue to lead the military Obama repeated obsolete campaign slogans:

As I said throughout the campaign i will be giving secretary Gates and our military  a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraq control.

Obama, reflecting the emotions of the anti-war Left, and unwilling to acknowledge any benefit from replacing a noxious, terror-sponsoring dictatorship with an allied democracy, still uses the word “end” rather  than “win” or “succeed,” or “prevail.”    Otherwise, his goal, a successful transition to Iraqi control is no different than the goal Gates has pursued under the Bush Administration.

Under Mr. Gates’ leadership the US and Iraq have just reached an agreement, ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, that calls for US troops to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011, or more than twice as long as Obama has insisted would be his pre-scheduled sixteen month timetable, which he did not mention in today’s remarks.

This appointment certainly leads to some interesting questions:

Will President Obama try to impose his sixteen month withdrawal timetable?  That seems out of the question, now.  If that were his plan he would not have renominated Gates.

Will the anti-war left give President Obama a pass and quietly go along with three more years of US troops stationed in Iraq?  Or, will there be protests and pressure on  Congress to override Obama’s plan for three more years of “Bush policies”?

In partnership with ACORN, the Obama campaign conducted massive voter registration drives to attract ignorant people like those who appear in the video.  Informed people who are interested in politics are already registered.  Most of the newly registered were the apathetic and uninformed, who were then deliberately targeted by the simplistic, misleading messages of the Obama Cult of Personality.

Here some excerpts from the results of a Zogby Poll of Obama voters conducted after the election:

Q: Before the election, which party controlled both houses of Congress:

Answers from Obama voters: Republicans: 36.5%; Democrats: 43%; Neither party: 13%; Don’t know: 8%.  only 43% of Obama voters knew the right answer.  How could any sentient American believe that neither party controls congress?

Q: Which candidate could not say how many houses they own?

Answer: McCain: 81%.

Q: Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house?

Answer: 87% of Obama voters answered Sarah Palin.  Actually Gov. Palin said, correctly, that one can see Russia from the far North-West edge of Alaska.  It was Tina Fey, who changed it to “from my house” in a Saturday Night Live skit.

These voters were not school dropouts.  Over 90% had attended and/or graduated from college.  Only 3% had not completed high school.  Unfortunately, education in America no longer includes what used to be standard: the fundamental principles that informed the founding of America and the writers of  the US Constitution.

For those of us who wish to preserve liberty in America, the strategy is easy to identify, if very difficult to implement:  We must find ways to communicate the timeless principles of  liberty, and limited government, and the proven success of private enterprise in this era of audacious hype and a corrupt, negligent mass media, that enthusiastically participates in manipulating the uninformed.

The Next President is virtually certain to be called upon to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices.  Barack Obama has dramatically contradicted himself on the type of Justices he would appoint.

The Doctrinaire Senator Obama has often criticized Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito as “the wrong kind of judges for the Supreme Court.”  When asked about judges he would appoint, he said he considers Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter to be “very sensible judges.”

Yet, after two recent Supreme Court Decisions a right leaning, poll tested Obama suddenly appeared.

The Death Penalty Case

The court ruled decades ago that the death penalty does not violate the Constitution.  But in June the Supreme court ruled that Louisiana law violation of the Constitution in allowing the death penalty for a convicted child rapist . How could it be unconstitutional to execute a child rapist? The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy said in part,

A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

The legitimate, Constitutional role of The Court is to interpret the written Constitution and the written law.  The court’s role is NOT to sense a dubious, unverifiable “consensus” in order to justify a decision that contradicts the Constitution.

In our political system the people express consensus NOT through the courts, but through their elected representatives, in this case the Louisiana Legislature.  But, five arrogant Justices stepped out of their legitimate Constitutional role, to overrule the Legislature and The People of Louisiana, based not on an interpretation of the US Constitution or of the law, but on an imaginary “consensus.”

Did Barack Obama agree with this decision to spare a child rapist based on “consensus”? Here’s his reaction to the Court’s ruling:

“I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”

So, with lots of qualifiers, Obama sort of supports a death penalty for child rape.

But, which Justices voted to strike down the death penalty for for a child rapist? Justices Kennedy and Stephens, and the three that Senator Obama held out as “sensible” examples of the kind of judges he would appoint to the court: Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter.

Which Justices voted to uphold the death penalty for this child rapist? The four Senator Obama says are the wrong kind of judges: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

So which Obama should we believe?  The Obama who said he would appoint more Justices like Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter?  Or the Obama who said the death penalty should be permitted for child rapists?

The Second Amendment Case

A second case decided by the Court in June exposes Obama as once again being duplicitous and deceptive. This one was about the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For nearly a century The Left has been selling a specious legal interpretation of the Second Amendment, holding that the Amendment did not protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Rather, it conferred on government a so-called “collective right” to issue guns to on-duty National Guardsmen.

Of course it’s obvious from even a casual study of the history of the times that the founders were not the least bit concerned with governments having the power to arm their troops. The founders’ fundamental mission, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and throughout the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to protect individual liberty from the inevitable tendency of governments to become too powerful and oppressive.

The notion that the founders intended for the Bill of Rights, a list of protected individual rights, to include an assurance that government troops could be armed, is preposterous.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down a thirty-two-year-old Washington D.C. law forbidding individual ownership of firearms. In a major, historic ruling, the court affirmed the intent of the authors of the Second Amendment to protect a preexisting right of individuals to own guns.

The Justices in the minority put enormous effort into rehashing all the specious arguments of the past 100 years to defend the tortured “collective right” interpretation. Here are a couple of excerpts from the minority’s dissenting opinion that summarize their thinking:

“…nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia authorized by law and organized by the State or Federal Government.”

“In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the National Guard of the several States.”

Senator Obama’s reaction to this historic Supreme Court Decision:

I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right. And that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on.

Which Justices voted to deny us the right to own a gun and supported the outrageous “collective rights” theory? Justice Stevens and the three that Senator Obama held out as examples of the kind of “sensible” judges he would appoint to the court: Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter.

Which Justices voted to uphold the Second Amendment’s protection of free people’s individual rights to own firearms? Justice Kennedy and the four Senator Obama says are the wrong kind of judges: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

Which  Obama should voters believe?

.