Obama: 'Google, Facebook would not exist' without government

Times247

President Barack Obama insisted ... that without government spending, “Google, Facebook would not exist.”

You have to parse that in order to respond to it.  Nobody is saying that all spending should be stopped.  It is excessive spending under this administration that's the problem.

As for whether or not companies exist because of the government, that is not true.  Just because government didn't stop it from coming into existence doesn't mean that the created the company.  In order for Obama to be correct, he would be saying that the government invested in research that directly enabled the existence of these companies.

That's a stretch.  For example, it is like saying that research and development effort came up with the ideas that directly led to Facebook and Google and all there creators did was to steal those ideas.  Really?

Jay Cost: Can Romney Win Back the Wealthy Suburbs?

Morning Jay

quote:

the party already is continuously blasted by Democrats for being unduly dependent upon the demands of the wealthy. Given that this is never going to change, wouldn’t it be nice if the party could actually win the wealthy?

Comment:

Something that I always wondered about.  How can the Republicans be for the rich and not win their votes?  How can that be?

It is Supposed to be Hard

coyote blog

Excerpts:

• I am simply sick of the incessant whining from this administration that it’s too hard to get legislation through Congress and that difficulty justifies the Administration to start unilaterally exercising legislative powers via executive decree
• We have Presidents of both parties that just invent new executive powers and who put pressure on the Courts to agree to broader and broader Federal powers.
• Already at 41 years since the last one (not counting the odd 27th amendment) this is the longest span in history without an Amendment being passed.

Comment:

I'm thinking of the 80% list that Newt Gingrich was talking about- another Contract With America to run on for 2012.  Here's another one in the list- restoration of limited government.  No more czars, executive orders, pushing the envelope regulatory schemes.

Let me start a list:

1. Laws must be passed by Congress alone, no help from the President or the Supreme Court.  In short, honor the Constitution.  Obey the law of the land, which is the Constitution.
2. The eligibility for the office of the President should be clearly defined, by a Constitutional amendment, if necessary.  Only real Americans should be President.
3. Only real Americans should be able to vote.  Deny the vote to naturalized citizens.  Why?  So you don't get presidents like Obama.  Obama ate a dog.
4. The budget should be balanced.
5. Everybody pays for their own stuff.  No more free stuff from the government.
6. The Fed should be limited in its money creation powers.
7. Updated!  As with item 5 in this list, people expect a hand up, but not handouts.  People want jobs, not foodstamps.

There, that's a good start.  If I can think of any more, I'll come back to this list.

Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus

wsj online

Excerpts:

• Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states.
• Housing is merely one front of what he calls the "progressive war on the middle class." Another is the cap-and-trade law AB32, which will raise the cost of energy and drive out manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions.
• "green energy doesn't create enough energy!" Mr. Kotkin exclaims
• In a nutshell, "the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees."
• So if California's no longer the Golden land of opportunity for middle-class dreamers, what is?
  
  Mr. Kotkin lists four "growth corridors": the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, and the Southeast. All of these regions have lower costs of living, lower taxes, relatively relaxed regulatory environments, and critical natural resources such as oil and natural gas.

Comment:

The "progressives" like to claim the shrinkage of the middle class as one of their big concerns.  But look at one of their big, blue states- and you see a different picture.  California is pushing the middle class out of state.

Obama Failed Buffett Rule Test

dickmorris

quote:

The other major point Obama has been touting is his success in turning around General Motors, saving American jobs. Oh Really? The fact is that of the 202,000 General Motors employees, only 68,500 live and works in the United States.

Comment:

If this guy gets anything close to a real race in November, he will lose.  Even low information voters ought to be able to get this.

The 2012 National Debt Road Trip

Published on Apr 4, 2012 by 10000Pennies

The deficit financing accelerated under Obama no matter how you figure it.  This video proves it.

Google and James Cameron to hunt for natural resources on asteroids

foxnews

quote:

Tuesday's event is being hosted by Peter H. Diamandis and Eric Anderson, known for their efforts to develop commercial space exploration, and two former NASA officials.  ..."I believe that opening up the resources of space for the benefit of humanity is critical," Mr. Diamandis said in an interview with Forbes magazine earlier this year about plans to launch an asteroid mining company.

Comment:

This is what I've been blogging about all this time.  Instead of bashing each other's heads in because of a shortage of resources, just make more resources available.  The earth may or may not be finite, but outer space is infinite, and so is its resources.

Ann Barnhardt at Liberty First

Update on Ann Barnhardt's video

I'm putting this up. It is provocative to say the least.

York:Obama faces defeat on pipeline as Dems defect

campaign2012 washingtonexaminer

quote:

If Obama vetoes the pipeline, he faces an embarrassing rebuff in the House. But in the Senate, it would take 67 votes to overturn the veto, and that's probably an insurmountable obstacle for pipeline supporters. All the president would need is 34 Democratic dead-enders to stick with him to stop the pipeline.

But Obama could prevail only at grave political cost.

 Comment:

If politics is war by other means, how can Obama win this battle?  York thinks it is a lost cause for team Obama, but is that so?  What can he do to mitigate the effects of a veto, which York says will cost Obama politically?

There is the Strategic Oil Reserve.  If oil prices spike, he can unload as much as possible in order to damp down the price increases.   Even if he has to veto it, Obama still has options.  This political game ain't over yet.  But using the Reserve for political reasons is not necessarily in the best interest of the country, but will the public recognize this?

In the end, all this may do is allow the Republicans to make a small political point at Obama's expense.   The Congress is up for election as well as the president, so that explains their defections.  The pipeline could still be defeated, but the Democrats can take cover in voting for something that won't become a reality anyway.

It's politics, but it is not a game changer, except for the well being of the country.  It would be better if the pipeline is approved, sure.  It would be a little better for Obama as well, because by the time the election comes around, people will have forgotten it either way.

If it is war, it is best to know the enemy.  The enemy for the Democrats is the truth and the public's memory.  All they need to do is make sure people don't find out the truth, or remember it.

The Deepwater Horizon Two Years Later

American Thinker,  Bruce Thompson

• Until now, the government has had a pretty free hand in criticizing the offshore oil industry. Now industry gets a chance to criticize government. 
• The lowest risk and lowest-chance-of-success options were chosen first. At the end, what was done to contain (the well) -- it's possible it could have been done in the beginning.
• Ouch! You mean it needn't have taken 87 days to stop the flow of oil?
• But a version of the plan that ultimately worked was proposed in the earliest days of the crisis by experts from a Houston firm, Wild Well Control Inc.
• What probably best summarizes the politicization of the source control efforts is this e-mail reported by Joel Achenbach in his book (pp 212-213), A Hole in the Bottom of the Sea, from Admiral Allen to BP's Bob Dudley.
• And it clearly demonstrates the fanaticism of the "principals" within the Obama administration, particularly Steven Chu, to their oil collection agenda, one intended to measure the flow of oil so as to solidify their claims to the maximum fines under the Oil Pollution Act and thereby punish BP, without regard for the collateral damage on the residents of the Gulf Coast

[emphasis added]

Comment:

This is damning to this Administration.  They made the spill worse than it had to be and tried to politicize it for the purposes of punishing BP.

This is what needs to be remembered when Obama claims to be for "all of the above" when it comes to energy.  He is fanatical about stopping the oil industry and this was his big opportunity to do it.  When it failed and began to backfire, he begins to cover it all up.  People have to be fooled.

No More “Mr. Obama Is a Nice Guy”

robertringer columns Michelle Malkin

quote:

There is a reflexive desire among a certain species of moderate Republicans to be perceived as “civil” by liberal opponents who believe that the mere existence of free-market, limited-government conservatism is an indecent affront to humankind. All aboard the U.S.S. Lost Cause.

Comment:

It looks to me like McCain was a fool.  He doesn't see politics as another form of war.  Malkin seems to understand.  Malkin wants Romney not to repeat that foolishness.

You need to have a very clear view of the enemy in order to win.  It is a war.  From the Art of War, every politician should "know your enemy" and "know yourself" as the keys to victory.  McCain didn't know the enemy and what the enemy was capable of.  

He thought the media would help him.  Instead, it trashed Palin and trashed him.

As for Obama, Malkin sees him clearly:

Let it be noted that Mr. “Nice Guy” never goes out of his way to show his opponents respect. In 2008, Obama openly bragged that his campaign strategy is: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

So much for being nice.  The enemy won't be.

New Gallup Poll: The Obama Effect Is Wearing Off

blogs.the-american-interest

excerpts:

• In the heady days of 2008, starry-eyed pundits predicted that the election of Barack Obama would lead to a complete rehabilitation of America’s image in the world. 
• Overall, confidence in the US fell 13 pionts in three years to 40 percent in Latin America. international community is nearly universally losing confidence in America’s leadership.
• For the first time since Obama’s election, America has lost its position as the most respected major power, losing out to Germany
• A strong economy and a well-ordered budget are signs of strength
• Wealth, success and a solid financial foundation have a lot to do with how people regard you.

Comment:

Obama is counting on fooling Americans in order to get reelected, but he hasn't fooled the rest of the world.

Economic Recovery Myth Disproven!

Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Morris points out that the jobs growth numbers are bogus.  Can this work politically?  Can enough people be fooled on election day so that Obama can be reelected?

The "dog wars" are not going well, but it keeps people talking about anything but the economy.

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture

cosmiclog msnbc

The folks who brought you zero-gravity airplane flights and multimillion-dollar trips to the International Space Station have lined up some billionaire investors for their next space venture — but they're not quite ready to tell you all about it.

The Dog Days of the Presidential Campaign Begin

NRO

quotes:

What I suspect is that this partially reflects the political professional class looking at the low-information voter and wondering what, if anything, will stick. Surely, even those who know almost nothing about politics and don’t care will at least pay attention to a story about a dog, right?

The operative theory about America’s political situation holds that the fringe of each party is poorly informed, and the middle possesses the wisdom, but our numbers show it’s actually the extremes that are engaged — and thus, up on their facts — while the middle is relatively ill informed.

So what ends up influencing the decisions of these low-information voters? All kinds of factors, including appearances . . .

The dueling dog stories represent each campaign making Hail Mary passes to reach these low-information voters.

Comment:

Who wins the dog wars?  It may determine the outcome of this election.  Sigh.

Well, if the other side wants to talk about dogs, I don't think this is to their advantage.  Combine this with Obama's birth certificate controversy, and you've got something.  Ask this question:  What real American eats dogs?

I think the answer, and a conclusion about Obama's authenticity should follow rather easily since no Americans eat dogs.  Not even the poorest Americans eat dogs.  It is repulsive to Americans.  It is unthinkable.

If you doubt this, watch the movie Blade Runner.  A scene from that movie illustrates the phenomenon clearly.  In order to determine if a person is really a person, a test is given to a suspected "Replicant", who isn't human.  In a scene in that movie, a series of questions are asked to this person who isn't even suspected of being a "Replicant", but she fails, and is discovered.  The reason she fails is that she registers no emotion about dog meat being served at a banquet.  This shows how much it is in this culture that the prospect of serving dog meat and one's reaction to that prospect could determine something so fundamental about a person.

The Blade Runner clip is below:

Romney: This election is about jobs, not about Obama eating dogs

Hot Air ( with video)

Here’s Scarborough and company treating the “dog” wars with precisely the degree of seriousness that they deserve.

also:

Like I said last night, the story about Mitt and Seamus really is part of Hopenchange’s campaign strategy. They’re not going to win on the issues but maybe, if they spend enough, they can create enough of a “likability gap” to nose out Romney at the wire.

Comment:

Well, seriously, this is one of the themes that Gingrich was talking about.  Once it gets about to be personal, it stops being about issues.  Failing politicians focus on personal stuff because they are uncomfortable with ideas.  It looks  like Obama is uncomfortable with ideas.

 

Ted Nugent - Dog eat Dog

Lyrics were needed for this cuz I can't understand what the heck he is singing.  Ted Nugent is a bit controversial these days.

Now I know why Gingrich lost the bid for the nomination

It was when he came out in favor of a moonbase.  Why?  It wasn't because it was a bad idea.  Actually, I thought the speech was quite good.  But it wasn't an 80% approval item that he had advocated before.  Gingrich claimed that victory was assured if you can run on 80% approval issues, which he said he did with the Contract With America.  You won't see a moonbase on the top issues in this campaign.  A moonbase may not make 10% in the polls.

So, what should he have done?  It's kinda hard to come up with 80% issues.  But one came to mind just recently.  I think that if you took a poll you could get over 80% of Americans who would be against eating dogs.

Romney: No Greek Columns for Obama This Time Around

Sarah Huisenga - NationalJournal.com

In a line that got a laugh from the audience, Romney predicted that the president’s reelection committee will have to change some of the visual aspects of his second acceptance speech as well. “One thing I am convinced that you are not going to see at the Democratic Convention -- you are not going to see President Obama standing alongside Greek columns," he said. "He is not going to want to remind anybody of Greece” -- a country deeply in debt.

Comment:

Good shot.  Romney proved he can deliver a shot, I wonder if he can take one.


Update:
Obama's campaign going to the dogs:

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: How Politicians and the Media Use Race as Bait

A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com

The media needs a come to Jesus moment.  It was they who made this into a bigger problem with their race baiting.  If you get the politicians by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow.  That's the way it was supposed to work, but doesn't because the media is corrupt.

How We Nearly Lost Discovery

Wayne Hale's Blog

quote:

I flew to New Orleans the next day, and called an all hands meeting where I publicly apologized to the foam technicians. They had not caused the loss of Columbia through poor workmanship.  Those guys were reeling from the hurricane’s devastation to their homes and community, and has lived with nearly 3 years of blame. Thin comfort for me to apologize, so late, so little.[emphasis added]

Comment:

Actually, even though this seems bad, I think it is good.  Admission of failure is absolutely necessary so that corrections can be made.  For example, if this mistake was covered up, another shuttle could have been lost, and that may have been the end of the manned space program.

We need a catharsis in this country.  Things have gone wrong.  It needs to be admitted and corrected.

Good leadership requires that.   We don't have that at the national level right now.  We have a president who continues to make excuses rather than admit mistakes.

A Fish Rots from the Head Down

American Thinker

quote:

We are now witnessing rot within our government agencies, ranging from our hopelessly corrupted Department of Justice, to the formerly above-the-fray Secret Service to the supposed watchdog of federal property management, the Government Services Administration; we are seeing what happens when subordinates observe slackened restraint in the reins of proper governance and detect a permissive attitude towards rapacious overfeeding at the public trough.

Comment:

No accountability for years and years now.  Without that, what keeps the corruption from taking root?

CME offers little sympathy for unhappy Eurodollar traders

Chicago Sun-Times  h/t Barnhardt

Traders who staged a walkout at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange got little support from the market’s top officials during a meeting Monday, said an organizer of the protest.

According to Barhardt, this is suspicious...

Why do I call this money laundering? Well, the BUYER in the block trade now has this instrument at a price of 97, and the rest of the market is trading at 100 (99bid at 101ask). He can start selling his "block traded" 97 position immediately.   [ emphasis added ]

Well, these block trades are said to be private, but are reported afterward as public, which affects the price.  Crooked practice, it would seem.

This is the same CME that wouldn't make good on Corzine's thievery recently.  Corzine stole funds directly from accounts that were supposed to be insured.  It's like stealing money from your bank account and being told tough luck, the bank stole it and the FDIC won't insure against the loss.

Not only that, the embezzler gets off scot free.

Something's rotten in Denmark.

Undecided Lean To Insurgent

dickmorris.com

quote:

With most current presidential polls of likely voters showing 9 percent to 10 percent undecided, the question of where the undecided votes go becomes of paramount importance.


To answer this question, I compared the final Gallup polls with the actual results in every race in which an incumbent president was opposing an insurgent since 1964.

In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall.

Comment:

Still, I have my doubts that an easy victory is in the offing.   Anything can and does happen.  I followed the Bush Gore race pretty closely until the end.  Bush was ahead consistently by 5 points or so when Gore sprung his DUI gambit at Bush on the eve of the election.  That seemed to make a difference.

40-state sweep

donsurber  h/t Instapundit

The 2012 election will not be about whether Ann Romney worked a day in her life or Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut or whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the second degree.

The 2012 election is all about Barack Obama.

Comment:

That's a bit much.  There would have to be a lot of blue states that vote for Romney.

The Undisputed Truth- Smiling Faces Sometimes

Uploaded by dustyboxof45s on Jan 8, 2009

Update:

That video was taken down by YouTube, so I replaced it with this. The thing that made me think of this video was that RNC video of Biden v. Ryan debate.   Watch that video, and this watch this one.  Biden seems to be wearing a wolfish grin.

Romney Overtakes Obama!

Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Comment:

Obama received no primary challenge.  If there was anyone who deserved one, it was Obama.  Quite significant to me that he enjoys such support from Democrats.  He does not deserve it.

Obama's Lawless Bureaucracy Now Trying To Deliver an Unconstitutional Advantage to Big Labor

ace

Another issue at stake in this election is the rule of law- it is breaking down.

Obama's new rule, then, has a main intent of denying important, decision-affecting information to workers.

It's also unconstitutional for a federal bureaucracy to make new law. [emphasis added]

Question:  What prevents a President from assuming dictatorial powers?  If the Congress is split politically, as it now is, there is no remedy through impeachment.  Without that as a threat, a President could do whatever he wanted.  A case in point- Bill Clinton committed perjury, but was not removed from office.  This gave a wayward President a green light to lawlessness.   He got away with breaking the law and there were no consequences.  That precedent could lead to disastrous outcomes if it is not reversed, and accountability restored.  But how?

This was challenged as far as constitutionality. Congress cannot delegate a power to the executive that the Constitution says lies with -- and must lie with -- Congress itself.

But the Supreme Court permitted this "regulatory state" by creating a distinction between "law" -- which only Congress can pass, as the Constitution says -- and mere "rule," a minor bit of specification in support of the law Congress passed.

Congress has delegated too much authority to the executive and the Supreme Court has ratified it.  This has not been an overnight occurrence.  It has taken many years and many missteps to get to the point.  There is the threat of no more "checks and balances".

What about voters?  Well, too many don't pay attention and don't care.  Those who do may only care about narrow concerns.  But the rule of law affects everybody.

Now, even though Congress may vote on a joint resolution to block this-- and this cannot be filibustered in the Senate -- it still requires The President's signature to block the rule:

So the President can assume authority when he wants, and the President can block laws with vetoes.  So, even if the Congress tries to exert itself and its own authority, the President can block it.  The Supreme Court?  If it gets packed, as FDR tried to do, they will just be a rubber stamp.

One line of attack removes power from the nation at large to Washington DC; the second line of attack removes power even from the elected tribunals from the country and pushes it into the hands of bureaucrats who answer only to the Executive (if they answer to anyone at all).

This must not stand. Because if it stands, the American Experiment will not.

Voters may not have much of an opportunity left to stop this.  We still have the right to vote.  But that is meaningless if it isn't exercised.  Moreover, there are overarching concerns, like this one, that should override any narrow interest.  For if the Constitution is overthrown, what is left?

Ann Barnhardt video

freerepublic.com

Don't have time to watch it, it lasts an hour.  So I perused some of the comments about it.  One of the comments had an expression of a feeling I've had for the last few years.  "I don't recognize this country anymore."  That's it.  Something may have snapped in the collective consciousness of the nation in recent years.  Or, it could be an accumulation of a long term trend.  In any case, there may not be much that can be done to restore things to what they once were.  Instead, it may be only possible to preserve what can be preserved.

Still, there are positive things happening.  It's not time to declare defeat and retreat to the hills just yet.

Fairness?

A short blurb on that topic.   I recollect a co worker who had a complaint about how much money he made.  He didn't think it was fair that all of the employees made the same salary and he let me know about it.  Evidently, he expected to make more money than myself, yet I made more than he did.  I made more on commissions, mostly because I had a better location than he did.  That's what bugged him.

It was probably not to wise of me, but I offered to exchange locations with him.   He refused.  In retrospect, I think I should have said that whatever the boss wanted to pay him was between him and the boss.  I should have told him that there wasn't anything I could do about it.  As for myself, I asked for a raise.  I didn't get it.  On the other hand, if he managed to get a raise, I don't think I would have bugged him about it if he had gotten it.

What does this have to do with fairness?  Whatever the boss decided to pay him and what he agreed to accept was his business.  I think it is that way a lot, but some people like to make a big deal out of it when they think they are being treated unfairly.  It isn't anybody else's problem, so why should they burden someone else with their own grievances?

I mean, why should have I have the problem.  But I did take it upon myself to help him with his problem.  I offered him something which I shouldn't have.

The reason I'm bringing this up is this idea of "fairness" that Obama likes to bring up.  Fairness is between two people who are dealing with each other.  It's really nobody else's business.  Why should the government be involved?  If you don't like the way you are being treated, just go somewhere else.

The rich have the same scenario as what I dealt with.  I was agreeing to take less money just to make this knucklehead happy.   Why should the rich be burdened with the grievances in which the rich had nothing to do with?  Why should the rich take a "pay cut" just to make some envious person feel happy?  It's the envious person's problem, not the rich guy's.

Lagging recovery

Just pulled up this chart from NBER, which does the call on recessions and the business cycle:

Last 4 recessions: 1981 Reagan, 1990 Bush 41, 2001 Bush 43, 2007 Bush 43

The left most number is how long the recession lasted.  My memory was that the 1981-82 recession also had the feature of double digit inflation.  Unemployment was rather high as well, probably comparable to the most recent recession.

The question arises as to why the Fed Funds rate hasn't been raised yet.  A rising Fed Funds rate is an indicator of a strengthening economy.  A low rate, such as we have now, is an indicator of a weak economy.  Given that the recovery is nearly 3 years old now, there should be more evidence of a turnaround.

Certainly with a comparable economy that Reagan inherited in 1981, there was definite evidence of improvement by the election year of 1984.  That's why Reagan won 49 states.

Obama has had enough time, even with a weak economy that he inherited.  Actually, the recession was mostly over by the time Obama took office.  It was already a year old by then.  Reagan's recession began after he took office.

Today's budget deficits are too high as well.  By the time the recovery was finishing the third year of Bush 43's presidency, deficits were coming down.  Bush also had to deal with September 11th.

What has Obama had to deal with besides a weak economy?

The comparisons don't favor Obama.

Still running against Bush

That's the takeaway I get from the summation at the end of this video. After this much time in office, there needs to be a record to run on, not to pretend that this is still 2008.

Wanna do something to help?

Sign this petition! (White House)

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/enable-american-energy-independence-retaking-lead-thorium-energy-rare-earth-dependent-hi-tech/jbyN79rb

Blog: Why isn't anyone talking about the failure of Obama's 'Green Economy?'

Rick Moran American Thinker  h/t Instapundit

This piece by Andy Sullivan at Reuters is remarkable for how it highlights the monumental gap between President Obama's promises about how going green will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and begin to transform the economy, and the actual results in the last 3 years.

Comment:

When I saw that supply and demand for oil was balanced back in 2004, I knew that there was a problem.  That was before gas even reached 2 bucks a gallon.  Since then, I've been searching for ideas that could possibly work.  The very first thing I looked into were the so called green alternatives.  But one problem with them all, they were all "five years away".  Here it is, more than five years later, and they still aren't here yet.


Green energy is a pipe dream.  It sounds too negative, but that is the syndrome.  A pipe dream is being sold and people want to believe in it.  Even I, as a global warming skeptic, spent a lot of time on the subject.  Even today, I look for ways to trim carbon dioxide emissions.  That's how far this thinking has permeated our culture.  But does anyone challenge its validiity?  If so, not enough.

We need to concentrate on real solutions to a real problem.  But we are stuck on a pipe dream and stuck on stupid.

The one thing I found that could work has been sitting on the shelf for forty years.  It has been proven in concept.  All that is needed is commercialization, but it can't gain traction.  It wouldn't take that much, but it goes begging for money and attention.   Meanwhile, the pipe dream keeps playing on.

Coming Up Empty: Obama deserves little credit for expanded energy production

freebeacon.com  h/t redstate

excerpts:

• The administration’s latest attempt to claim it is expanding oil production came from the Department of Interior. The agency recently announced a new program to streamline and automate permit applications for oil and gas drilling.
• But the pilot project was originally created by a provision in a 2005 Republican-sponsored energy bill. Not only that, but the administration has spent the last four years trying to repeal portions of it.
• This isn’t the only energy project the president has attempted to take credit for in recent months.
• President Obama has been emboldened by liberal journalists and commentators who have defended the administration’s energy record. 
• What TPM’s chart shows, however, is that the industry was climbing during the recession, which began in 2007, only to decline after Obama took office.
• Fossil fuel production on federal lands has also dropped significantly during the Obama administration.

Comment:

What amazes me is that Obama seems to be benefiting from this.  Polls had him leading Romney on the issue of Energy.  How can that be?  It has to be the media and the public not paying close attention.  It is a troubling thought that a politician can take credit for something good in which he opposes.  At the same time, the public suffers through higher prices because of these very same policies.  Maybe you really can fool all the people all of the time!  ( hope that's wrong)

Obama's Misleading Reagan Reference

Larry Kudlow

Just this past week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Obama's divisiveness is demoralizing to the economy and the country. And former General Electric CEO Jack Welch told me in an interview that Obama has taken a "divide-and-conquer approach, amassing a list of enemies that would make Richard Nixon proud."

Ronald Reagan's optimistic rising-tide-lifts-all-boats message was the direct opposite. For Obama to attempt to associate himself with Reagan is a demagogic falsehood of the worst kind.[ emphasis added]

Comment:

Us v Them, the pathway to failure.  Or to victory, which is only good until the next time.  Not the same as getting solutions, which doesn't require victory over an enemy.  Or victory over a problem, not a person.


The "other" gets demonized and bashed, but the problem remains to be solved.

What Santorum Did Wrong…And Right

dickmorris.com

The more he capitalized on the Evangelical support to win Southern primaries, the more anathema he came to be for Northern Republicans and the more attractive Romney became. When Obama turned up his fire on the Republican Party’s “war on women,” he undercut Santorum’s candidacy and made Republicans fear defeat if he were to be nominated. (Why did Obama not wait to make the charge until after Santorum had gained more traction? Big mistake).

Comment:

Judging from Morris' assertion that Obama started his rhetoric on the so called "war on women", it appears that Obama is not the 10 foot tall behemoth that the Northern Republicans think he is.   What are they so afraid of?

Fantasies of Social Darwinism

Jonah Goldberg, The Weekly Standard

The news peg for the story was President Obama’s claim that the House Republican budget is nothing but “thinly veiled Social Darwinism.” It is, he added, a “Trojan Horse,” hiding within in it “a radical vision” that is “antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.”

Comment:

What an amazing bunch of nonsense.  As a matter of fact, it is one of many examples of this president's strong tendency towards projection.   If there is anyone who is a Trojan Horse, it is this guy.  If there's anyone who would end this country history as a land of opportunity, it will be Obama.  The truth is that he doesn't believe in any of that.  Opportunity for what-  to be equal?  Nobody strives to be equal- everybody strives to be downright unequal.  That's what opportunity is about for heavens sake.  It takes nothing to be just one of the many- it takes something exceptional to be different and better.

Rep. Allen West Says There Are Communists in Congress; Is He Right?

Written by Joe Wolverton, II  

When asked if they hide it, West responded, “No, they actually don’t hide it, it’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Comment:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Republican Presidential Candidates Speak at Annual NRA Meeting

c-span  h/t Free Republic

"Unexpectedly," Progressives Have Math Problems

Townhall Finance - John Ransom  h/t Free Republic

quote:

Zerubbabel wrote: ...I think many on the Right are so caught-up in the left/Right conflict that they can't think clearly.

 Comment:

The left/right conflict is a lefty invention.  Ronald Reagan observed that when he said this:

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

So often I see the thing that left accuses the right of doing is what they do themselves.  It is called projection.