President Obama is Responsible for Our Fiscal Mess
President Obama is responsible for our fiscal mess. I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not saying that simply because I think that Barack Obama is a terrible president, although I do think that he's an awful president. I'm saying that because the president has had ample opportunity over the past four years to arrive at a compromise solution to our immediate fiscal problem and then to make headway toward dealing with our longer-term fiscal issues, but he has failed miserably.If the president had taken some of the advice of his own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we wouldn't be counting the minutes before we fall off the fiscal cliff, but he didn't heed their warning two years ago. Even worse, he has given us no indication that he ever intends to take our nation's spending problem seriously.
The word "compromise" must not appear in Obama's dictionary. That fact has been obvious since Day One of his presidency. His first major initiative, Obamacare, was figuratively shoved down the throats of members of Congress, even members of his own party. It has been Obama's way or the highway since the beginning, and it's still his way. This time there will be a high price to pay.
Yesterday on "Meet the Press", the president told David Gregory that he cut spending by more than a trillion dollars in 2011. That's pure nonsense, but he got away with it because Gregory was too busy licking the president's shoes to do his job.
Anyone who believes that President Obama cut spending in 2011 needs to have his head examined, and spending continues to be the most serious fiscal problem that we face. That's what the Fiscal Responsibility Commission told the president. There is no way to solve our nation's fiscal problem without cutting spending, period. Stated another way, we can't tax our way out of this mess.
Pretending that increasing tax rates for millionaires and billionaires will do anything significant to solve our long-term fiscal problem is ridiculous. If millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. gave everything they own to the government and paid a 100% tax on their earnings, our spending problem would still be an imminent threat to our nation's fiscal solvency.
If President Obama were serious about solving our fiscal problem, he would give lots of ground on spending, but as I said, he's not serious. Instead of dealing with the problem, he's playing politics as though he was running for re-election. And it's the worst kind of politics because he's playing the class warfare card and stoking a fire that has the potential to explode across the nation and produce results that I don't want to imagine.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/president_obama_is_responsible_for_our_fiscal_mess.html
As 'Fiscal Cliff' Draws Near, Obama Leaves Negotiations to... Biden
In the final hours before the "fiscal cliff" becomes a reality, President Barack Obama has left talks to... Vice President Joe Biden, who is reported to be negotiating directly with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).The Hill reported yesterday: "McConnell has begun talking with Vice President Biden in an effort to 'jump-start' the negotiations." President Obama has adopted to remain out of the talks and supposedly above the fray.
The last-ditch effort between Biden-McConnell talks reportedly began Sunday evening, after McConnell and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) failed to reach agreement on core issues.
This is not the first time that Obama has delegated core responsibility to his deputy. He did so, most recently, on gun control efforts. He has also done so on the issue of helping the middle class and monitoring stimulus funds.
Vice President Biden's extensive Senate experience may give him unique credentials in negotiating with the Senate's top Republican. He also led debt ceiling talks with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2011.
Yet President Obama is the only person with the authority to make a deal--and is the only politician with enough power to force Democrats--or entice Republicans--into agreement. His absence at this late, critical stage would be puzzling, were it not a hallmark of President Obama's leadership style, preferring to stay out of negotiations unless absolutely necessary, from the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009 to the debt ceiling talks of 2011.
Yet Obama's reticence has little to show for it; most of these effort have resulted in failure to reach a deal. By abdicating his leadership role to Vice President Biden, President Obama risks the same on the "fiscal cliff."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Biden-Not-Obama-Leading-Democrat-Negotiators
PK'S NOTE: Again and again, this is what is in our education systems .... and you wonder why our country is going to hell.
Subverting the Constitution
Another line is being crossed in the campaign to fundamentally change America. The Left has long regarded the American Constitution as an obstacle to the sort of fundamental change it desires, and now the seeds of delegitimizing the Constitution itself are being planted by powerful members of the progressive establishment.Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, is no fringe figure. He is a pillar of the left wing legal establishment, graduate of Harvard Law, former clerk for Thurgood Marshall, and notable figure in the Leftist "critical legal theory"
movement.
His law school's most prominent recent graduate is Sandra Fluke, and
its former dean, Peter Edelman, is most famous for resigning a senior
position in the Clinton Administration to protest the wildly successful
welfare reform measures enacted when the GOP controlled Congress and
signed by President Clinton.Seidman has taken to the pages of the daily bible of the progressive establishment, the New York Times, to lend respectability to a movement to subvert the Constitution, and turn to an undefined system which inevitably means the loss of our safeguards against tyranny. All expressed in superficially reassuring prose. In a stunningly-titled piece, "Let's Give Up on the Constitution," he writes, for example:
The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.
What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can't kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.My colleague Rick Moran has already treated the shallowness of the arguments. However, the real intent of the piece is not to persuade by logic, but rather to put on the table the very foundation of our lives as Americans, and devour it by increments, as it becomes increasingly respectable to mouth the opinion that it really doesn't matter what the Constitution says, if an important issue is challenged.
A republic, if we can keep it.
Update:
After 100 years of attempting to destroy the Constitution even though professing fealty to it, the progressive movement has its new, honest champion in Seidman.
The United States Constitution has been disobeyed, battered and belittled, yet we have somehow survived as a nation. According to Seidman, "Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens." Why not finally and completely gut our "supreme" American law, and become like the others?
Seidman, like so many progressives, tries to argue that following the Constitution is impractical, and that it somehow holds us back from achievement: "[W]e ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance." (Emphasis added.) He adds:
"Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago."The difference between constitutionalists and progressives such as Seidman is that we recognize that the Constitution is not a law governing the actions of individuals. The Constitution is our supreme and paramount law, but it is a law that frames and controls our government, meaning that it was written to govern government itself.
The Constitution sets forth generally how the government must operate and behave. It is the laws of driving for the government, and is violated at the peril of others. Only by remaining faithful to the Constitution may the government make, enforce and adjudicate other laws governing the people. But note that nowhere does the Constitution actually dictate the behavior of society - only the behavior of government itself. Progressives often confuse government with society.
The Constitution was unprecedented when it was created. No people had ever established from scratch and in one document a supreme, written law governing government. The very intent of this written law was of course to provide protection for society, which was thought to be the primary purpose of any government.
What made the United States Constitution a unique creation theretofore in history was that it was also a law to protect God-given liberties of each individual, from the lowest born to the mightiest. The Constitution was therefore without an exact model on which to rely, although the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights were seeds of this new creation.
There were no precedents under which the people created a written law to establish a government by governing government itself. Great thinkers among the Founders tried to articulate the notion of what was to be this unprecedented written constitution. Wrote one anonymous author in 1776, "Among the many publications which have appeared on the subject of political Constitutions, none, that I have seen, have properly defined what is meant by a Constitution."
Writing in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton called the Constitution our "paramount" law, but find anywhere in the Federalist Papers reference to the Constitution's regulating anything but government itself.
What the Founders did through the Constitution was to create a supreme law to govern government itself, and to "give up on the Constitution," therefore, is the progressive way of freeing government from the rule of law. I suspect that at least 75 percent of Americans would refuse to concede to that type of tyranny.
Why Conservatism Has Lost The Battle For The U.S. Government
There is not any question today that liberals/ progressives almost totally rule the five idea-producing, attitude-fashioning social institutions – academia, judiciary, news industry, spiritual leadership, and entertainment establishment. By the conclusion of Obama’s final year in office, liberal/ progressive dominion over all means of societal belief-forming and propaganda-distribution will be unchallengeable. Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio do not have the reach or bandwidth to effectively compete with “the big five” in the arena of information and opinion dissemination.
In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party establishment and conservative, talking-head pundits (they are not the same thing) are daily trying to rally their troops, while simultaneously attempting to convince themselves about the continued viability of the Republican Party, with innovative campaign strategies of “running better candidates,” improving their “campaign ground game,” perfecting their “micro-targeting, digital campaign,” “reaching out” to blacks and Hispanics, and “beefing up the conservative message.” In the end Republicans and conservatives comfort themselves with a belief in the “historical inevitability of the periodic swing of the political pendulum” back to the right. These pundits theorize that with time, the American public will come to their senses and understand what an economic train wreck Obama and liberalism/ progressivism have created. It is a Republican article of faith that liberalism/ progressivism can be discredited by its unavoidable economic failure to the extent a Republican candidate can again be competitive for president in 2016 and on into the future.
Conclusion
The “conventional wisdom” of the Republican Party’s strategies to recapture the White House do not really adequately address the fact that liberal/ progressive institutional insurgencies have successfully seized the U.S. academia, judiciary, media, mainline churches, and entertainment industry. While the Republicans and conservatives do acknowledge liberal/ progressive control of academia, media, and entertainment; they bravely theorize that Republican-conservative election victory is still possible without them by going directly to the voters using their innovative strategies for more effective campaigning. Furthermore, the Republicans and conservatives are making the erroneous assumption that they are still competitive within the arenas of the judiciary and religious institutions.
There is a lot of talk among Republicans and conservatives about Obama’s electoral victory being due to his “Santa Claus promises of social welfare goodies and free Obama-phones.” Rush Limbaugh has aptly christened the believers of Obama’s promises as “low information voters” (AKA “the stupid” in pre-PC days). The Republican-conservative answer to “low information voters” is thought to be found in their innovative strategies for more effective campaigning that will turn out the latent conservative voter base that will outnumber the Democrat “low information voters” in the next election.
However, the John Dewey-crafted public school system, which puts socialization over factual learning, has already produced legions of “low information voters” who place “fairness” over economic results as the 2012 election definitively proved. Since there are no constructive reforms in the works for the public education establishment, there is no logical reason to believe that there will be anything but more “low information voters” in 2016. And, of course, the statism ideal taught in academia is daily reinforced by the judiciary, media, mainline churches, and entertainment industry.
It has taken the forces of liberalism/ progressivism over a century to achieve their current, unassailable societal-political dominance. It is foolish for Republicans or conservatives to believe that innovative campaign strategies will overcome liberal/ progressive control of all societal opinion-shaping institutions in a one-to-two year political campaign. The problem for Republicans and conservatives is that, as Obama's economy gets worse, the liberals/ progressives just get stronger because "low information voters" clamor for more statism (e.g., food stamps), not less. The populace demands more government welfare in economic crisis, not more "free market economy." The liberals/ progressives have developed and been able to enforce a political correctness "speech code" on the nation that precludes honest discussion of the undeniable failures of liberalism/ progressivism. For instance, there are 47.7 million people on food stamps, an increase of 15.1 million in Obama's first four years. That statistic in a sane world would be a "shameful" commentary on Obama's economic policies, but instead political correctness converts it into commendable "compassion" motivated by "fairness." Unless Republicans and conservatives can devise some short-term "magical" solution or long-term public "reeducation" program to replace "fairness" with economic logic, they are doomed to spend an eternity in the political wilderness.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012123031649/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/why-conservatism-has-lost-the-battle-for-the-us-government.html?utm_source=Right+Side+News&utm_campaign=5c7f64eca1-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email
Obama Yawns As Syria Uses Chemical Weapons, Crosses 'Red Line'
Rebel forces in Syria report that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is now using chemical weapons on them. Moreover, intelligence operatives from the West have confirmed those reports as well. But there has yet to be a peep out of the Obama administration over it.Western intelligence operatives have reviewed multiple frames of footage taken in Syria, and from that footage have determined Assad has been using "paralyzing agents" against rebel forces for "a few months now."
According to Israel's Ynet News:
These agents are not mustard gas, sarin nerve gas or VX, which are classified as chemical weapons, but they can definitely be considered toxic and harmful to humans.
For now, there have been less than 20 incidents in which Syrian army forces and the Shabiha militia have sprayed gas or a toxic liquid in rebel-held residential neighborhoods. Since the rebels did not display any bomb remnants, it is safe to assume that the gas was sprayed manually.
These gases do not necessarily cause death and are not as lethal as gases that are classified as chemical weapons. They also evaporate quickly and do not leave an odor, making them difficult to identify. However, they can cause a sense of asphyxiation, harm the airways and cause skin burns. The gases can be lethal if inhaled by people who not healthy.
The Assad regime is most likely using these chemicals to instill fear without risking an international response. The last incident in which toxic gas was used was in Homs a few days ago. Six people died.
This news is made even worse by the fact that death numbers rolling in from Syria show 24-hour periods in which 400 people have been killed by conventional warfare alone. Add chemical weapons to that and who knows how high the death toll for one day could climb?
To date, over 44,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict and estimates are that the number could climb to 100,000 by the end of 2013 if there is no true intervention.
While refusing to put down red lines on Iran for Israel, Obama and his advisers were very public about their "red line" for Syria: the use of chemical weapons.
It appears that red line was crossed months ago, yet there have been no repercussions for Assad.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/31/Obama-Yawns-As-Syria-Crosses-Red-Line-And-Uses-Chemical-Weapons
No, AP and Politico, It Isn't About 'What Hobby Lobby Says'; It's About What Is Actually True
One of the establishment press's favorite tactics to diminish the perceived strength of a position taken by people or companies they are inclined not to favor is to take objectively true facts and statements and reduce them to things only those people or companies "say" or "believe."Hobby Lobby's case against the ObamaCare mandates is a perfect case in point, with both the Politico and Associated Press providing recent related examples of this fundamentally dishonest tactic. In the December 26 item at the Politico, Jennifer Haberkorn and Kathryn Smith also falsely framed the situation as an argument over "contraception" (more on that in a bit; bolds are mine throughout this post). But first, let's look at how the pair employed the "they say" tactic:
Supreme Court denies emergency injunction in contraception case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Hobby Lobby’s request for an emergency injunction to block the health reform law’s contraceptive coverage requirements and said it will not decide the case before lower courts have ruled.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the store owner doesn't meet the extremely high standards required for a preliminary injunction. It's not "absolutely" clear that they need the injunction and lower courts have been divided on whether to grant similar requests, she wrote, though she adds that the court doesn't have much experience with similar religious-based claims for emergency injunctions.
... Sotomayor received the request because she handles issues originating in the 10th Circuit.
The court also denied Hobby Lobby’s request — joined by Christian-book company Mardel — that the court take up its entire case, in which they argue that the coverage requirement forces them to provide contraceptives and emergency contraceptives that violate their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby says it will face fines beginning Jan. 1 without the injunction.No, Politico. Either Hobby will face fines or they won't. If the fines aren't ultimately assessed by Kathleen Sebelius's HHS, that's another matter. Either the ObamaCare law or the mountain of regulations issued since its passage contain provisions for fines in situations such as these or they don't.
Well, they do, as CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor Eric Marripodi demonstrated on Friday (but then note how Marripodi lapsed into "they say" mode after getting it right):
Craft store giant Hobby Lobby is bracing for a $1.3 million a day fine beginning January 1 for noncompliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare.
... The Internal Revenue Service regulations now say that a group health care plan that "fails to comply" with the Affordable Care Act is subject to an "excise tax" of "$100 per day per individual for each day the plan does not comply with the requirement." It remains unclear how the IRS would implement and collect the excise tax.
The Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, based Hobby Lobby chain has more than 500 stores that employ 13,000 employees across 42 states, and takes in $2.6 billion in sales. The company's attorneys say January begins a new health care plan year for Hobby Lobby and that excise tax from the IRS would amount to $1.3 million a day.That the company faces fines of $1.3 million per day is a matter of legal fact, not something "Hobby Lobby says." Haberkorn and Smith, either deliberately or out of laziness (though confirming the truth took me only a few minutes) make the potential fines appear to be a matter of opinion, when they are not.
Over at the Associated Press, the reporting in an unbylined December 27 item is accurate on the fines and gets the "contraception" element of the company's argument correct, but still falls down on the science.
As to the fines, the AP dispatch correctly reports that the company is not complying "despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day." They are "potential" fines because HHS and/or the IRS may decide not to assess them, or may assess lower amounts. (Look up one of the definition of "tyranny," -- "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority." -- and tell me why a government possessing such discretion wouldn't be an example of it. Good luck.)
The AP item's headline and content also get the "contraception" matter right on definition, but still misses on the underlying science. That's an improvement over the Politico's pair's report, which leaves readers with the impression that Hobby Lobby opposes all forms of contraception. That is not the case, as AP explains:
ATTY: HOBBY LOBBY WON'T OFFER MORNING-AFTER PILL
An attorney for Hobby Lobby Stores said Thursday that the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill ...
Hobby Lobby and religious book-seller Mardel Inc., which are owned by the same conservative Christian family, are suing to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.
The companies claim the mandate violates the religious beliefs of their owners. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb.Thus, the controversy is over abortifacient (abortion-inducing) drugs and devices and not over all forms of contraception. But whether the morning after pill is "tantamount to abortion" is not something "they (company officials) say." It's a matter of scientific fact. Any drug or device which can "prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb" is by definition an abortifacient, no matter what the company does or doesn't "say."
One thing I can "say" for sure is that assigning objectively true assertions only to Hobby Lobby officials minimizes their significance. Whether the Politico and AP used the "they say" tactic to deliberately drive an agenda to obscure the truth or merely did so out of sheer laziness -- or some of both -- is something I can't "say."
Also Read:
No comments:
Post a Comment