Recently in All Hail His Obamaness Category

By way of Glenn Reynolds comes this article from Investor's Business Daily showing how the Obama campaign is based upon 5 phony economic claims, all easily debunked.

Obama's claims:

The Bush tax cuts and deregulation caused the recession.

I stopped a second Great Depression.

My policies are working.

A slow recover was inevitable.

Nobody could have done any better.

Let's take a look at two of my favorites, being the first and last claims on the list. First, the first claim:

The Bush tax cuts and deregulation caused the recession.

It's a standard Obama talking point. But it's not true. Bush's tax cuts did not cause the last recession.

In fact, once they were fully in effect in 2003, they sparked stronger growth -- generating more than 8 million new jobs over the next four years, and GDP growth averaging close to 3%.

Those tax cuts didn't explode the deficit, either, as Obama frequently claims. Deficits steadily declined after 2003, until the recession hit.

Most of the deregulation that Obama blames on Bush took place during Clinton administration. If anything, regulation grew during Bush's time in office. Obama needs to retire this phony claim as it's too easy to prove it's false.

In regards to the last claim - Nobody could have done any better - I have only this to say:

I could have done better than you! I have a modicum of understand about how an economy works, how improper and overreaching regulations can hurt businesses large and small, and that punishing success and rewarding sloth and failure get you less of the first and more of the second, neither of which helps the economy. My wife and I have actually run a business, dealt with the headaches such a thing entails, worried about paying the bills and taxes, meeting a payroll, and dealing with an ever increasing litany of more intrusive (and expensive) regulations that affected our business. While you, on the other hand, haven't run so much as a lemonade stand. (But you did manage to piss away $110 million in Annenberg Foundation funds with nothing to show for it.)

And if you need even more ammunition to debunk the claims made by The One, there's this graphic that does a pretty good job of explaining why none of his claims are anywhere near the truth.


'Nuff said.

Wow, sometimes a picture tells a book. Sometimes it can lie.

But this one from the debate last night--Dennis Miller said he thinks the President should hope his Obamacare covers an asswhoopin'--shows a confident Romney, a feckless empty suit Affirmative Action President, and his petulant, churlish wife. Drudge, the media genius, has it on his page, too. Have you seen it?

I happened to catch a snippet of ABC's World News and I could not believe what I was hearing.

To all intents and purposes, ABC has already declared Obama the winner in tonight's debate, a full 2-and-a-half hours before the debate has even started. George Stefanopoulos and Diane Sawyer gushed about Obama's commanding presence, how he is so good in a debate environment and that Romney appears weak in comparison.

Yet another bit of proof that the major media networks are firmly in the pocket of the Obama campaign.

I think that even should Romney crush Obama in the debate, ABC, CBS, and NBC will declare Obama the winner.

Courtesy of GG.

It certainly didn't take long.

Yesterday I mentioned in my weekly Thoughts On A Sunday post that it wouldn't be long before the Dems tried to set up an October surprise. Here it is, one day later, and it's already started.

First, there's a number of Twitter streams claiming all kinds of nasty things about Romney, including a fake Romney quote about slaves, that he wants to abolish the Martin Luther King holiday, and that his campaign slogan came from an old KKK campaign.

Then there's this roundabout way that Obama might be seen as a 'savior'. It came from a reader e-mail commenting on the Chicago teacher's strike.

"It MAY be ALL coincidental, but within the last couple of weeks, my cousin told me about a truly diabolical plan for election 'optics.' He is a Longshoreman in Texas. His union was considering going on strike for the sole purpose of allowing BHO to intervene and settle the labor dispute and look like either a uniter or maybe even tough on unions. So, when I saw that Rahm's teachers went on strike in spite of a 16% pay raise offer, my mind went places that logic would never take it, but modern day politics do. Worth watching anyway. Also, to protect my cousin from retribution from union thugs, I suppose it would be best to avoid attribution here."

Would I put it past the Obama campaign, and particularly David Axelrod, to pull off such a scheme? Nope. It is, after all, politics, Chicago-style. (Think Jack Ryan during the 2004 Senate campaign.)

By way of GraniteGrok comes this enlightening video. Just remember, "You didn't build that!"

First, we are told "You didn't build that!"

Next, it's "Government is the only thing we all belong to."

It's merely another part of the Democrat mind-set, being that we owe everything to the government and that we are owned part and parcel by that same government. In other words, they are trying to tell us that we are slaves of the State and that we should be grateful for our indentured status.

What's worse is that at there are a lot of people who look forward to becoming vassals as if that will somehow relieve them of some great burden. It will. They will be relieved of their freedom to choose for themselves. They will become nothing but a disposable cog in the machine that is the State.

Is there anything we as Americans can do to prevent this from happening? Sure.

Vote them out of office. Ridicule them at every opportunity. Show the rest of the people that what these folks are advocating is not a solution, but a trap. There are plenty of examples to prove the point.

One of the biggest in more recent American history was LBJ's Great Society, a social welfare program that trapped millions in poverty and kept them dependent on the government, generation after generation. Minorities that had been making great strides to lift themselves out of poverty after World War II were again made second class citizens, having sold their freedom for a regular check from the government coffers. What's worse is that very folks who pulled this off painted their efforts to re-enslave them as a means to reach some kind of never-to-be-reached 'equality'. They were sold a lie, one too many still continue to believe.

If they need other examples there are plenty to choose from - the Bolshevik Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, Chavez's Venezuela, and a whole host of other nations that tried what the Democrats have been attempting to do (and failed miserably). It's a system that is always doomed to fail. Some have failed in spectacular fashion while others have been slowly fading away. But all of them have had one common element - surrendering individual freedoms to the State.

It's National Empty Chair Day!

Check it out.

Apparently some anti-Obama signs down in Hanson, Massachusetts have created something of a controversy. The two signs, put on private property by the property owner, have generated both ire and applause.

A few homemade billboard signs in Hanson, Mass., have generated considerable controversy for their inflammatory anti-Obama messages.

Sitting on the property of motorcycle accessories distributor Sullivans Inc., one large sign shows President Barack Obama with a caption that reads: "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot."

"Obama One Big Ass Mistake America, Vote Mitt Romney for 2012!" it reads below the main headline. The communist symbolic images of the hammer and sickle are on the president's shirt collar.

Several feet away, another sign shows a pouting young girl giving the middle-finger to the president. "Thanks, Obama," begins the caption in bold red letters, and then continues in child-like penmanship: "You've spent my lunch money, my allowance, my inheritance, 35 years of future paychecks and my retirement. You jerk."

While the first sign displays the displeasure felt by the property owner towards out Socialist In Chief, the second is closer to the truth than most people realize. The President has mortgaged our children's futures, leaving them to pay the bills run up by him, Pelosi, and Reid. (I'm not saying the GOP has no skin in this game, but you have to admit that Obama has increased the debt greatly - about 50% - in a very short period of time with help from the Democrats in Congress.)

I have a feeling we'll see more signs like this showing up the closer we get to November, particularly the second one.

The echoes of Ann Romney's words had barely stopped reverberating at the GOP Convention before the Left's long knives were drawn, working to draw blood by doing to Ann what they'd done to Sarah Palin - dehumanizing her.

Jennifer Rubin covered Ann's speech, stating:

She showed a determination and soberness that was appropriate to a still doubting public. No one speech is going to turn an election. But Ann Romney delivered as promised. Romney and his team should consider themselves lucky to have a candidate's wife who can look her fellow Americans in the eye and sound both sincere and ebullient. She is indeed his greatest asset.

But to read the comments to Jennifer's post, you'd think Ann was something that crawled out of a sewer, becoming someone even more reviled than Palin. But what do you expect from readers of the Washington Post who are "true believers" in the cause of Progressive Socialism, (thought they don't call it that...assuming they even know what it is.)

All kinds of accusation were leveled at her, all kinds of claims about her background made, and attacks made against her sons. But every single one of those supposedly enlightened bits of information were so easily debunked with just a little bit of search time on Google or Bing. But the facts don't fit with the narrative and therefore must be discarded.

What it comes down to is the folks posting those kinds of comments ceased thinking for themselves years ago and are capable only of regurgitating what they've been told by their leaders/friends of a friend/etc. If what they hear backs up their 'beliefs', then it must be true, right? After all, the Democrats and the Left never lie about anything, do they?

I expect that the closer we get to the election the worst the attacks against Mitt, and particularly Ann will become, harking us back to the days of the character assassination of Sarah Palin and her family. And like the last election, I expect the Obama campaign to go after the Romney kids and grandkids. But I also expect to hear a hew and cry if anyone were to make cracks about Michelle or the Obama girls. After all, the rules only apply to the GOP and not the Democrats, right?

And considering some of the other activities seen by the Left and their lapdog media, I expect the racist looting hypocrites to pull every dirty trick in their book to keep the Narcissist-in-Chief in office, including making sure all of the dead, the non-citizens, and other ineligible people 'vote' for their guy as many times as they can. After all, aren't the Democrats, and particularly the Chicago machine, the party of voter fraud? (See, I can make accusations, too. But at least I can prove mine.)

For the most part I have been trying to avoid many of the campaign ads running on TV. But they are so pervasive that it is almost impossible to do so unless I'm watching something recorded on the DVR so I can skip right past them.

But I have noticed the tone and I have to say I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

It isn't that many of the ads are negative. That's pretty much par for the course. It is the focus of the ads and some of the outright falsehoods and very creative editing being put forward as the "Truth".

Before I go any farther let me give you this warning - I am not non-partisan. I am not going to pretend I'm non-partisan and I'm going to admit right up front that I am biased.

The upcoming elections in November are driving a great big wedge between those who believe the big issue for this election is the economy and those who think it's about anything but the economy. The first group is right and the second is wrong.

As I have said time and time again to many of the anti-Tea party folks (most who seem to believe the Tea party wants to impose some kind of Christian theocracy), the social issues don't matter worth a damn if the nation is bankrupt. If the economy collapses things like abortion rights, same-sex marriage, drug laws, ObamaCare, Social Security, and a whole host of other social issues will become marginalized because everyone will be too busy just trying to survive. None of that crap will matter to anyone. As Democrat consultant James Carville famously said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

The GOP ticket is focusing on the right issues, specifically the economy, jobs, and overreaching government regulations that have only hurt the economy. The Democrats want to focus on anything but the economy, and that's understandable. It's a losing issue for them. So they'll focus on all kinds of social issues that most Americans could care less about. They'll put forth ads and whispering campaigns about how Romney wants to take us back to the Middle Ages, ban all contraception, put women back in the kitchen, and steal lollipops from the mouths of children. (The last is more likely to happen, but it will be Mike Bloomberg doing that, not the Romney.)

Accusations of tax fraud, FEC and SEC violations, and wrongful death have been flung at Romney, yet every one of them has been found to be without merit. But that doesn't mean the Dems won't keep throwing those kind of accusations his way.

Romney's life is pretty much an open book, unlike our present President who is one of the most secretive persons to ever sit in the Oval Office. We know nothing about him other than what he wants us to know, and that's not much. But to hear it you'd think Romney was hiding all kinds of secrets. It's the standard Democrat tactic of accusing others of doing what they themselves are doing.

I've seen my share of presidential campaigns, but I have to say that this one is probably one of the most divisive and nasty ones I've ever seen. I also expect it to get worse, particularly if the Dems and their 'supporters' (the unions) decide to use their proxies (anarchists, OWS, etc) to up the ante and start with physical threats, voter intimidation, and outright acts of violence. Of course I also expect that if such a thing happens they'll get a pass from AG Jeffrey Holder, much as they did during the 2010 elections.

It wasn't until I was running some errands after work that I finally noticed something that had been just at the edge of conscious thought, bugging me over the past couple of weeks.

It wasn't something that was there that had been rattling around in my subconscious, but rather the lack of something.

What was it?

Obama campaign signs, or rather the total lack of Obama signs anywhere I've been over the past couple of weeks. There are plenty of Romney signs, Ovide LaMontagne signs (running for the GOP nomination for governor of New Hampshire), Kevin Smith signs (ditto), Maggie Hassan and Jackie Cilley signs (ditto, but for the Democrat nomination) and a spray of campaign signs for those running for offices covering the US Congress, the New Hampshire House, Senate, and Executive Council, to county commissioner. But I haven't seen one Obama sign. NOT. ONE.

I must remind you that I am only talking about a half dozen towns in one county of central New Hampshire (which happens to be heavily Republican), but still I would expect to see a few signs here and there. (I am not counting the various campaign offices, of which there is one in Laconia, I think.) Other than a few deluded souls who believe Obama is their Messiah writing letters to the editor in our local papers, I haven't come across anyone I know who voted for Obama in 2008 that are planning to vote for him this time.

This is something the polls have failed to show. But then my 'data' is anecdotal and covers a very small portion of one small state. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

UPDATE 8/24/12: I talked to a number of co-workers about this subject and they've noticed the same thing. One co-worker lives in the Capitol City area (Concord) and he's noticed a dearth of Obama signs. Another lives down near the Massachusetts border and he says he's seen a couple of signs in the city of Nashua, but that's it.

Finally, some good news about the EPA.

In this case, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia slapped down the rogue federal agency, ruling that it had exceeded its legal authority in regards to application of its new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Under the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision, the EPA is authorized to regulate sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cross state lines. But the Obama EPA ignored legal precedent and the plain text of the statute by enacting limits that far exceeded the scope of the law.

While the EPA has not yet responded to Tuesday's court ruling, I expect it will do as it has in the past - ignore the court and continue to push more onerous regulations upon industry and impose fines and penalties on industries failing to meet the impossible conditions of some EPA rules.

One "impossible" condition we've heard mentioned in the media and the blogosphere in the past is the EPA penalizing the petroleum and refining industry for not using a mandated biofuel that doesn't exist. Talk about a Catch-22! But the petroleum industry is fighting back with the American Petroleum Institute filing a lawsuit against the EPA mandate in the D.C Circuit Court.

"EPA's unattainable and absurd mandate forces refiners to pay a penalty for failing to use biofuels that don't even exist," said API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco. "The mandate is effectively an added tax on gasoline manufacturers that could ultimately burden consumers."

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine the mandated volume of cellulosic biofuels each year at "the projected volume available." There was no commercial supply of the fuel in 2011, according to the EPA's own records. However, EPA required refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to use or pay for credits to cover 6.6 million gallons of the nonexistent biofuels.

This sounds like an "protection" racket, something right out of Chicago.

Hey, wait a minute!!! It is right out of Chicago! In this case the corrupt and mob-owned political machine has wormed its way into the EPA, turning it into nothing more yet another mob operation. And who helped turn it into such a thing but Chicago's wholly owned stooge, Barack Obama.

In any case, I expect the court to rule against the EPA on this suit too. I also expect the EPA to ignore it as well, should it come, and continue its destruction of the American economy one rule, one regulation, one fine at a time.

By way of Maggie's Farm comes this illustration, showing all too well the contempt which the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue feels for our hard-earned and long-defended Constitutional Rights.

Have any of you out there noticed that no matter how bad the economic numbers are, the Obama administration (and campaign) try to twist them around to make it seem things are getting better? That's certainly the case with both the latest jobless numbers, retail sales numbers, food prices (and by extension, gasoline prices), and manufacturing output. They're all heading in the wrong direction and Obama's folks trumpet them as if they're a prelude to the Second Coming.

One interesting spin on the latest jobless figures? "It's not 8.3%. It's only 8.254%!" Yeah, that makes it better.

Then there's the "unexpectedly" poor sales and manufacturing numbers. How is it explained away? Well, it's like this...ummm...uh...I guess they can't explain it away.

Perhaps they can borrow a lesson from California. After all, the Golden State political machine has gotten pretty good at taking bad economic news and making it sound good. Take one of their latest ploys, stating the state's falling population is a good thing because "it gives the state and the municipalities the time to rebuild and replace infrastructure for future good times." But they never explained that with falling population they also have falling tax revenues to pay for it all. Even Detroit never tried to pull that, knowing it would never fly. Perhaps the Obama camp will say the fall off in sales and manufacturing will allow retailers and factories to prepare for future demand? I wouldn't put it past them.

With the drought taking a toll on crops throughout the Midwest, you'd think Obama's administration would allow corn to be used primarily for food and feed rather than being burned in our fuel tanks. But that isn't going to happen and the result has been a spike in food and fuel prices.. I expect Obama will explain that away by saying "it's good for you" without really explaining why. That's pretty much par for the course for him.

A few months back I had written about adding a new feature to this blog, particularly some kind of cartoon. The concept was discussed with a friend of mine, GG, who happens to be a very good artist and we figured that between the two of us we could probably come up with a good one now and then. We think this one is a good one to start with.

It seems we've had a good run of comments out in the blogosphere with a second round of "Best Comment Ever". In this case it was inspired by President Obama's statement about how no one built anything by themselves, playing the Marxist word game that denigrates individual effort by trying to claim everything ever invented was a collective effort and that the individual couldn't have done it themselves.

Writes Frank Martin in response to our Marxist In Chief:

Just want to be clear Mr. President, in the three years of your Administration, you haven't built a goddamned thing.

My father was self employed all of his post-military service life. My father made furniture. He interviewed his customers at their home, sketched their desires on a piece of paper and then went to his workshop and created the piece from scratch. No one taught him to do this, he figured it out on his own. He took the time, the initiative and applied it to the task. He didn't apply for a job, he became the job. He was both artist and engineer. He was also his own man. He taught me that there is a dignity to work that no amount of good intentions can replace.

He was never rich, but he was free and that was the point of it all. It was never about the money. If people want to sit in envy my father, envy the freedom he had and not the money he made from his labor. He came and went as he pleased, he answered to no man but himself.

He used to say that at the end of the day what we all want from money is to be able to say "Screw you" and suffer no negative consequences from the act. Money simply buys the ability to walk away. My father never had a lot of money, but he was free.

In my 52 years of life, I have never heard anything from any politician that has left me filled with rage as the words the President has used to describe men like my father, the men of this world who live their life with the goal of being dependent on no one and only wish to be left alone.

I want to thank the President for providing me with a moment of clarity.

And should the President continue to provide such moments of clarity to the voting public, he can count on losing the election in November and being booted out of the White House bag and baggage.

You have to hand it to the Left. When they decide to take the low road, they go all in.

Yesterday, they went the racist route, denigrating Justice Clarence Thomas after the ObamaCare decision.

Today, the took the sexist route, with the DNC slamming ObamaCare foes with sexual slurs.

Talk about hypocrites!

In light of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, my only response is "We're screwed!"

It seems it took the majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, all kinds of elaborate and painfully twisted reasoning to justify the continuing existence of this godawful law.

While all hope is not lost, meaning it will take Congress to kill this law, repealing the ACA will probably have to wait until after the November elections, assuming Obama is kicked out of office bag and baggage and Harry Reid ends up as the Senate Minority leader. Otherwise we're stuck with a law that will seriously cripple a sixth of the American economy with draconian regulations and taxes. (One has to remember that the ACA requires 10 years of tax revenues to fund 6 years of benefits which is why the major part (and most expensive) doesn't go into effect until 2014. But what happens after those 6 years pass? Tax hikes, that's what.)

So once again the will of the American people is overridden by our supposed "betters" and we're still going to get stuck with the bill for their 'party'.

Carrying on from yesterday's post about the WaPo fact checker slapping the latest Obama anti-Romney attack ad with four Pinnochios, here's another from the WaPo fact checker on yet another Obama campaign claim that's also been awarded four Pinnochios. In this case it's White House senior adviser David Plouffe's claims made on last weekend's Sunday talks shows about Romney's job creation record, specifically how he created six times the number of government jobs as he did private sector jobs while he was governor of Massachusetts.

First, Plouffe's claim, made on Fox News Sunday on June 17th :

"There was an amazing article the other day, I believe it was in the Wall Street Journal, where Republicans in Congress openly were saying, 'we're not going to do anything until the election on the economy, because we want to help Mitt Romney.' ... With an economy that needs help right now, with the middle class that's struggling, it's an amazing thing."

"For all of this talk about government, for every private-sector job created in Massachusetts by Governor Romney, six public sector jobs."

Sounds incredible, doesn't it? Too bad it's based entirely upon very poor math, or at least a very poor understanding of math, something of which we all know the Obama Administration is guilty.

Here's the Fact Checker's finding:

In terms of the "amazing article" Plouffe referred to, we found no reports quoting Republicans talking openly about sitting idle on the economy to improve Romney's election chances.

--snip--

As for Plouffe's claim about the Bay State's employment gains, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show Massachusetts added 22,400 private-sector jobs during Romney's tenure. That means the state would need to have created 134,400 public-sector jobs in the same period for the White House adviser's claim to be true.

That's not even close to what happened. Massachusetts gained just 5,300 state-government jobs while Romney was in office. As such, the state added more than four private-sector jobs for every state-government job. This is pretty much the reverse of what Plouffe claimed.

Fact Checker goes on to explain the tortured path the White House folks must have followed to come up with the conclusion Plouffe used on camera. Call it an 'A' for effort, but an 'F' for the answer.

Is it any wonder such things like deficits and mounting national debt mean little to the Obama Administration? They. Can't. Do. The. Math!

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.