Archive for the ‘Obama Administration’ Category

Halbig and King, a response to Ziff Blog

August 2, 2014

A left-wing blogger named David Ziff wrote some intelligent commentary on Halbig, and the poor quality of the left’s response.  However, he also wrote the following:

It’s not like we don’t have good textual and contextual arguments on the left! For one, read the Court of Appeals decision in King v. Burwell starting on page 15.

I made the following comment.  Here’s I’ll do it with formatting 🙂

If you’re resting your hopes on the King Court, you’re going to be very disappointed.  First, let’s consider this from the 4th Circuit Opinion:

Section 1321(c) provides that if a state fails to establish an Exchange by January 1, 2014, the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.” (emphasis added). The defendants’ position is that the term “such Exchange” refers to a state Exchange that is set up and operated by HHS. In other words, the statute mandates the existence of state Exchanges, but directs HHS to establish such Exchanges when the states fail to do so themselves. In the absence of state action, the federal government is required to step in and create, by definition, “an American Health Benefit Exchange established under [§] 1311” on behalf of the state.

This is really pathetic.  The text says “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§]1311 of the [Act].”  “By”  Not “on behalf of”.

Second, there’s this, from Halbig (pages 18 – 20):

The dissent [and the 4th Circuit in King] attempts to supply this missing equivalency by pointing to section 1311(d)(1), which provides: “An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.” 42 U.S.C. § 18031(d)(1). According to the dissent, (d)(1) means that an Exchange established under section 1311 is, by definition, established by a state. Therefore, the dissent argues, because federal Exchanges are established under section 1311, they too, by definition, are established by a state.
The premise that (d)(1) is definitional, however, does not survive examination of (d)(1)’s context and the ACA’s structure. The other provisions of section 1311(d) are operational requirements, setting forth what Exchanges must (or, in some cases, may) do. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 18031(d)(2)-(7) (listing “[r]equirements”). Read in keeping with that theme, (d)(1) would simply require that an Exchange operate as either a governmental agency or nonprofit entity. But the dissent would have us construe (d)(1) differently. In its view, (d)(1) plays a definitional role unique among section 1311(d)’s otherwise operational provisions, creating a legal fiction that any Exchange is, by definition, established by a state, even when, as a matter of fact, it is not. That reading, however, would render (d)(1) the odd man out twice over: both within section 1311(d) and among the ACA’s other definitional provisions, which, unlike (d)(1), employ the (unmistakably definitional) formula of “The term ‘X’ means . . . .” See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg-91, 18024; see also 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c).
The dissent’s reading would also require us to overlook the fact that section 1311(d) would be a strange place for Congress to have buried such a legal fiction. Section 1311, after all, concerns Exchanges that are established by states in fact; the legal fiction the dissent urges would matter only to Exchanges established by the federal government. To accept the dissent’s construction would therefore transform (d)(1) into the proverbial elephant in the mousehole—the “ancillary provision[]” that “alter[s] the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress does not legislate in this manner, see id.; accord Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 267 (2006), and we see no evidence that it did so here. Indeed, we are particularly loath to accept the dissent’s construction given that there are far more natural locations to place this fiction, such as section 1321 or the provision defining the term “Exchange,” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(21).

Sorry, but the law was written as Gruber was claiming it was written back in 2012: The States would be forced to set up Exchanges by the threat that they would get no subsides.  The threat didn’t work, the gamble failed.  You want that changed?  Then you’re going to have to negotiate with Republicans, and give up a lot.  That’s what happens when you screw up.

The facts of the Zimmerman case

July 20, 2013

Elizabeth Scalia, blogging as “The Anchoress”, made some sadly uninformed comments about the Zimmerman trial.  I wrote this, and decided to post here so I don’t have to write this up again.  All feedback of a factual nature, either positive or negative, is quite welcome:

I am very disappointed in you, Elizabeth. Because it appears you’ve decided to comment on the Zimmerman case without bothering to actually find out what happened in the Zimmerman case.

So let’s consider some facts you appear to have missed, and see if you can come to a more enlightened opinion:

1: A neighbor of Zimmerman’s was home alone with her infant, when someone tried to break in. 911 told her to grab a weapon and hide. She grabbed a screwdriver, and hid in her room with her baby. Someone jiggled the handle on her bedroom door, robbed her house, and escaped, all before the police arrived.

Zimmerman and his wife befriended the woman, helped her deal with her terror, and bought her a new deadbolt. Then Zimmerman started the Neighborhood Watch program for their area.

2: Relying on police reports about burglary suspects, Zimmerman made multiple calls to the police about teenaged boys engaging in suspicious behavior. The result of those calls was that a black male teenager who lived in the complex was caught with stolen goods from multiple houses in the neighborhood. In one little irony, the kid was convicted in Judge Nelson’s courtroom (and if you don’t know that Judge Nelson was the trier of this case, you’re not qualified to comment on the trial, and should be embarrassed in yourself if you have commented on it).

3: Trayvon Martin was suspended from school twice. Once because he was caught with stolen jewelry in his backpack, the second time (which was why he was in Sanford) because he was caught with a used marijuana pipe in his backpack. The school security officers followed their boss’s policy of rarely reporting criminals, in order to get their boss awards for “cutting the crime rate”. (This came out because of this case.) If they’d actually reported the crimes, instead of just suspending Martin, he probably would not have been in Sanford that night.

4: Trayvon Martin’s cell phone had, hidden in a password protected file, pictures of him with jewelry on his bed, texts about his street fighting, texts from his younger brother asking to be taught how to fight, texts about buying and selling guns, and pictures of naked underage females.

5: The toxicology report on Martin said that he had the active form of THC in hsi bloodstream the night he died.

In short, Trayvon Martin was a thug. He was a crook, and he was a drug user. If Zimmerman had not killed him, the only real question is “would Martin have killed someone else before he got himself killed?” Happily, that answer turns out to be no.

6: George Zimmerman called the cops to say he saw someone wandering around, looking into the windows of a house where he knew the person didn’t live, acting strange, almost as if he was drugged.

If you have a problem with him making that call, your problem is with the whole idea of the Neighborhood Watch, not with George Zimmerman. The behavior he reported SHOULD be reported, it doesn’t matter if the person doing it is white black old or young.

7: Zimmerman tried to keep this suspicious character in sight. Eventually the person disappeared from his view, even when he stopped his car and got out. The person on the other end of his non-emergency police call told Zimmerman they “don’t need him to do that” (try to follow on foot), so Zimmerman went back to his car.

None of the above facts are disputable. You could, I suppose, try to claim that Zimmerman lied in his call, and Martin wasn’t really looking into any windows. But you would have to make that claim with zero supporting evidence.

So, please, tell us where Zimmerman displayed “bad judgment” in any of the above.

8: Zimmerman says he walked around in the area around his car, trying to find a street sign so he could tell the police who were on their way exactly where he was. Neighbors who lived there testified during the trial that it was hard to see street signs in the area, and that the street name had recently changed. In any event, Zimmerman got off the phone with the police.

9: Four minutes after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman less than 20 yards from where Zimmerman’s car was parked. (Time information taken from phone records entered at the trial. Location taken from where Martin’s dead body was found.) If Martin had been trying to go home, he would have been there, safe and sound. If I understand Jeantel (the girl who was on the phone with Martin), Martin DID get to his dad’s girlfriend’s place, and then turned around and went back. In any event, given the amount of time Martin had to get home, the ONLY reason for him to run into Zimmerman at the place where he did was because he chose to seek out Zimmerman.

10: Martin confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman responded defensively (rather than going on the offense and saying “why are you looking into windows of other people’s homes?”). We got that from Jeantel’s testimony. Then she claimed the call ended.

11: Zimmerman was struck in the nose, his nose was damaged, and bleeding. The back of his head was damaged from being struck into a concrete sidewalk. The defense’s forensic expert testified that the damage done to Zimmerman was potentially life threatening, that the police should have sent Zimmerman to the ER, and that if Zimmerman had died from his injuries, the police would have been sued, and lost. The prosecution’s witness, John Good, testified that he heard the screaming, went outside, saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning Zimmerman down, and striking down at Zimmerman (he could not testify that he heard the blows hit). Good told Martin to stop. When he didn’t, Good said he was calling 911. Martin’s attack continued.

12: The witness who claimed that Zimmerman was on top said she was sure that the bigger person was on top, and since the only images she’d seen of Martin were the pictures from when Martin was 12, she assumed Zimmerman was bigger. This was false, as the defense demonstrated when they had Zimmerman stand next to a life sized cutout of Martin.

13: Martin was killed by a single shot to the chest. His shirt was in contact with the gun, but the gun was shot from two inches away from Martin’s chest (as determined by the powder burns on Martin’s chest). The hole in the shirt and the hole in Martin’s chest lined up to show that Martin was leaning forward when he was shot.

In short: Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman, punched him in the face, tackled him to the ground, and spent 40 seconds beating on him, inflicting potentially deadly damage on him, and giving no indication that he was going to stop until he had killed, or at least crippled, Zimmerman. Zimmerman then got his gun out, and shot his attacker, killing him.

There can be no “duty to retreat” when you’re pinned to the ground. Every state in the nation allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself when you can’t retreat, and are in reasonable fear of death. Zimmerman could not retreat, and was in reasonable fear of death.If you still think Florida has “some laws that should probably be reviewed” because of this case, it’s because you are taking the utterly fringe position that self defense should never be allowed.

I hope you will take some time to get yourself actually informed on this issue before saying anything more. And I hope you will offer George Zimmerman the apology he so richly deserves after your ill-informed and utterly unjustified hostile comments about him.

Obama’s spending and lying w/ numbers

July 25, 2012

Over at a place called “Pragmatic Capitalist”, they’ve got a “Chart of the Day” purporting to show that President Obama isn’t a big spender.  Like all the dishonest hack pushing that meme, they do this by blaming 2009 spending on Bush.  I left the following comment:

I’d spend time responding to you, but the fundamental dishonesty you show by assigning 2009 spending to Bush shows there’s no point.

Who signed the 2009 budget?  Obama.  Who passed the 2009 budget?  A Democrat controlled Congress.

Did you include the 2009 Democrat “stimulus” in with that 2009 “Bush spending”?

Did you include TARP in the Bush spending?  Did you add that one time only expenditure to the “Obama baseline”?  Did you subtract TARP repayments from Obama’s spending, or from Bush’s spending?

Did you add the Iraq military spending to Bush’s total?  Did you credit Obama with “cutting spending” for the (planned by Bush) decrease in military spending in Iraq?

Do you have the slightest shred of honor or decency, or are you just a left-wing propagandist?

The quality of the Obama Adminstration “Senior Staffers”

April 20, 2012

Michelle Obama took her daughters to Africa for a safari, at a cost to the taxpayers of over $400,000.  She listed her daughters as “senior staffers” in the paperwork for the trip.

Part of this is about the appalling sense of entitlement possessed by those on the Left.  But to me the more amusing part is the juxtaposition with President Obama’s dog eating.  When Senator McCain joked about it on Twitter, and when others have joked about it, the Democrats response has been “how dare you pick on a 6 – 10 year old?”  Now, silly me, I thought President Obama was in his late 40s / early 50s, and in his 40s when it wrote the book talking about his dog eating.  But this is the Obama Administration, where the children are “senior staffers”, and the President is a “child”.

Obama Reneged when Negotiating w/ Boehner, WaPo

March 19, 2012

The Washington Post has a very revealing article about the failed debt negotiations last year:

Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own Democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner — already facing long odds — to sell it to his party. Eventually, the president tried to put the original framework back in play, but by then it was too late. The moment of making history had passed.

In other words, they had a deal, then Obama tried to unilaterally change it in his favor, and killed the whole process by his bad faith.  What a shock.

The Healthy Eating Act of 2013

March 10, 2012

Over at Volokh, Randy Barnet posted a link to his 2010 article on why the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, and then commented upon it.  The response by ObamaCare defenders has been quite interesting.  Essentially, they seem to be claiming the following:

  1. Congress has the power to regulate the health insurance industry, therefore
  2. Congress has the right to order the industry to do anything that Congress wishes to order, and therefore
  3. It is within Congress’ Constitutional powers to give the rest of us any order that Congress chooses, so long as that order is necessary in order to make the regulation work

Now, assuming 1 to be true, I think that 2 follows.  But I strongly disagree with 3.

If Congress had tried to pass ObamaCare with Community Rating and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, it would have been a bad law, and it would have destroyed the health insurance industry, but it would not have been unconstitutional (at least, it would have been within Congress’ recognized Commerce Clause powers).

Or, Congress could have done the above, and included funding for the insurance companies to make sure they didn’t go bankrupt because of those rules.  That would also have been constitutional.

However, neither was politically possible.  So the ObamaCare supporters are forced to claim that Congress is free to chose any means that it wants to back up its regulatory schemes, and that any choice Congress makes is therefore “Necessary and Proper”.

Call it the “(politically) Necessary (is therefore) Proper” theory of the Constitution.

Following in their footsteps, I now propose the “Healthy Eating Act of 2013” (as proposed by Michelle Obama, once her husband doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected):

  1. Congress hereby orders every person growing food (your private garden is, after all, part of interstate commerce via Wickard) to devote at least 50% of their growing space to Broccoli (we’ll call it the Healthy Eating Act of 2013).
  2. Because all the farmers will go bankrupt growing that much Broccoli, Congress therefore also orders every American to spend at least 40% of their food budget on Broccoli (they’re not being forced to eat it, they’re just being forced to buy it).

Given the claims by ObamaCare supporters, I don’t see how it could fail to pass muster.

President Obama’s failure’s during the Gulf Oil spill

June 9, 2010

Monday, Megan McArdle said the following silly thing, doubling down on her previous defenses of President Obama (who she supported during the 2008 campaign): “Let me reiterate that I don’t blame Obama for failing to “do something” about the gulf spill.”

She is wrong to do that:

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertise:

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Then there’s the guy in Maine who built a bunch of containment boom on spec, because he know it would be needed to protect from the Oil Spill:

John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.

The Obama Administration’s response to this problem has been just as incompetent as those of us who opposed him said he would be.  The problem isn’t that there’s nothing that the President can do, the problem is that the President isn’t good at doing anything other than talking, and running for higher office.

TSA to stop abusing us?

May 6, 2010

President Obama let loose this brain-dead statement today:

“We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens, and law-abiding immigrants, into subjects of suspicion and abuse.”

Hey, Mr. President, dealt with the TSA recently?  Had to take off your shoes, your belt, while shuffling through a line?  Had to walk through a full body scanner that will let a TSA employee practically see you naked?

No?

Then don’t talk to us about “turning American citizens into subjects of suspicion and abuse”, because it happens to us every time we try to fly commercial.

Barack Obama, enemy of the environment

May 5, 2010

Got to love this bit of news

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Barack Obama, handmaiden of the destroyers of the Gulf Coast.

Iraq was not a “distraction”

December 1, 2009

Megan McArdle has a post up complaining about Dick Cheney schooling Obama. In it she compares Cheney to former President Jimmy Carter.  This comparison is as mindless as it is wrong-headed.

If President Reagan had gone around whining about the problems he had “inherited” from President Carter, she would have a valid point.  But he didn’t and she doesn’t.  When President Buttercup Obama decides to man up, face the fact the he really is President of the United States of America, and do his job, rather than whining about the problems he “inherited” (he didn’t inherit them, he lied, cheated, and stole in order to become President, and thus get to deal with those problems.  If he didn’t want to deal with the problems, he damn well shouldn’t have run for the office), then it might be reasonable to call for Cheney to stand down.

But so long as Obama is blaming everything on the previous Administration, members of the previous Administration have not just the right, but the duty to point out he’s full of sh!t.

One of her commenters gave the following whine:

Of course if the previous administration had done the job right and not turned their attention to Iraq President Obama would not have to worry about Afghanistan now would he?

My response:

Do you ever think for yourself? Or are you merely capable of spouting leftie talking points that have no actual connection to reality?

The US Military is logistically “heavy”. To put it another way: we like to burn through a lot of material, instead of burning through people.

Afghanistan is a lousy place to try to do that. Iraq was not (nearby seaports are wonderful things for heavy logistics). When we invaded Iraq, the Islamist nutjobs followed, and fought us on turf that was well designed for our style of fighting.  As such, we slaughtered them in droves, and their terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people turned the Iraqis against “global jihad”.

That’s called “win win”.  Or, at least it is if you actually want to see the US win.

Afghanistan was and is a generation long struggle.  If you don’t want to deal with it, don’t run for President of the US.

President Obama’s Inability to understand Ethics

August 2, 2009

This bit of news has been making the rounds on the right wing blogs, but as of yet I haven’t seen anyone make the right point about it:

Four of the most powerful business leaders in America arrived at the White House one day last month for lunch with President Barack Obama, sitting down in his private dining room just steps from the Oval Office.

But even for powerful CEOs, there’s no such thing as a free lunch: White House staffers collected credit card numbers for each executive and carefully billed them for the cost of the meal with the president.

The White House defended the unusual move as a way to avoid conflicts of interest.

Excuse me? If the President went to a corporate event, and insisted on reimbursing the company for the cost of his visit, that would be “avoiding a conflict of interest.” That’s why there are rules about lobbyists buying things for Members of Congress. But, to the best of my knowledge, there’s no law preventing a politician from buying things <b>for</b> a lobbyist.

What is mainly on display here is “class”, as in “complete lack of”. But their explanations show something even worse than their complete lack of class:

The fact that no one in the Obama Administration even understand what ethics is. I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised that a Chicago politician backed by the Daley Machine isn’t really clear on the requirements of ethical behavior, but I do find it disappointing.

Jim Geraghty has a near constant refrain (“near constant” because President Obama gives him some many opportunities to use it): “All promises from Obama come with an expiration date.” A fish rots from the head down. So do Administrations. The Obama Administration starts with the liar in chief. Below him we have tax cheats, crooks, political hacks who care about nothing besides winning elections, and inexperienced, clueless losers.

“A” people hire “A” people, “B” people hire “C” people. By the (poor) quality of the people around him, we can judge President Obama.

HT: Slublog posting at Ace’s site, Fausta

The difference between a threat and a warning

June 20, 2009

Far too many news articles and blogs have been talking about the “warning” that “Supreme Leader”  Khamenei gave to protesters.  This is a misuse of the English language.

If I tell you “don’t go onto that bridge, because it’s unstable”, I’ve given you a warning.

If I tell you “I will shoot you if you go on that bridge”, that is a threat.

Khamenei isn’t warning the people of Iran, he is threatening them: roll over like dogs or I will send my thugs out to brutalize and murder you.

Let’s stop abusing the English language, and correctly describe his actions, ok?

Got to love that “smart diplomacy”

June 11, 2009

Wow, that Barack Obama, he sure is good at working with our allies, being non-unilateral, etc. Not.

Foreign Office fury over settlement of Guantánamo Uighurs in Bermuda

The British Government responded with ill-disguised fury tonight to the news that four Chinese Uighurs freed from Guantanamo Bay had been flown for resettlement on the Atlantic tourist paradise of Bermuda.

The four arrived on Bermuda in the early hours, celebrating the end of seven years of detention after learning that they were to be accepted as guest workers.

But it appears that the Government of Bermuda [and President Barack Obama’s State Department] failed to consult with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the decision to take in the Uighurs – whose return is demanded by Beijing – and it could now be forced to send them back to Cuba or risk a grave diplomatic crisis.

Bermuda, Britain’s oldest remaining dependency, is one of 14 overseas territories that come under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, which retains direct responsibility for such matters as foreign policy and security.

“We’ve underlined to the Bermuda Government that they should have consulted with the United Kingdom as to whether this falls within their competence or is a security issue, for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility,” an FCO spokesman said.

“We have made clear to the Bermuda Government the need for a security assessment, which we are now helping them to carry out, and we will decide on further steps as appropriate.”

Yep. it’s such a good thing that we now have the clever Democrats running our diplomacy now.

HT: Gabriel Malor over at Ace

This will be great, if Obama pulls it off

April 22, 2009

By way of  HotAir, I found this from IBD

It started Saturday, when he put himself next to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at lunch and then studiously exchanged notes.

Having listened to Uribe … Obama then seemed to realize that the long-stalled Colombia free trade agreement should have been passed yesterday.

The president announced that his team must find a way to pass the agreement.

Sweet.  The Democrats opposition to this agreement has made a mockery of Obama’s claims to oppose American “bullying” in Latin America, since their opposition was based on the wish to add requirements for Columbia to change their society to suit Democrat desires.  Since the treaty gives us the same benefits we’re currently giving the Columbians (in exchange for their anti-drug efforts), supporting the treaty is an “any-brainer” (i.e. anyone with any brains at all supports it).

It’s good to see President Obama supporting it.

The difference between Bush and Obama on spending

April 17, 2009

I think this graphic really says it all. Of course, when you add in the fact that Bush accumulated his deficits fighting and winning two wars against foreign enemies, and Obama’s accumulating his by making the Federal Government bigger, for no better purpose than that he wants the US Government to control more of our lives, it makes the comparison even worse.

Obama Deficit v Bush Deficit

Obama Deficit v Bush Deficit

I really hope this is a parody site

April 14, 2009

Because the depth of stupidity required to set up something like this for real is just too scary to imagine.

AMERICAN NETWORK MONITORING ANTI-OBAMA ACTIVITIES

A site dedicated for American citizens monitoring and reporting all anti-obama activities taking place on the world wide web.

A site dedicated to the preservation of truth, justice and the American way. Where true American citizens can monitor and report all anti-obama activities taking place on the world wide web.
This is a place where one can post and report on all activities, web sites and or blogs that would be considered erroneous, slanderous or detrimental to the newly elected President of the United States.

If it’s not a parody site, I hope they really grow to hate me.

President Obama: (Cheese eating?) Surrender Monkey

April 14, 2009

Gerald Warner says it better than I have

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice.

On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot – but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops – all of them non-combatant, of course – which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you – as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

So now we know: Obama does not believe “Climate Change” is a problem

April 14, 2009

There’s one thing that’s going to be true about anybody who thinks that human activities are screwing up the planet: they’re not going to do the things that they think are screwing up the planet.  With this news report, we now know that President obama does not, in fact, believe that “excessive” carbon-based energy usage is a threat to the planet.  because if he did, he would ahve had the White house Cook make the damn pizza.

Obamas fly in chef 860 miles… just to make pizza

When you’re the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do – even if that means flying a chef  860 miles.

Chris Sommers, 33, jetted into Washington from St Louis, Missouri, on Thursday with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pans to to prepare food for the Obamas and their staff.

He had apparently been handpicked after the President had tasted his pizzas on the campaign trail last autumn.

‘It’s surreal, it’s a huge honour,’ said Mr Sommers, who owns Pi restaurant in St Louis.

‘It will be a casual lunch and hopefully we’ll have a chance to say hello to the president.’

Mr Somers was accompanied by this business parnter Ryan Mangilardo who will help prepare the dinner for 140 this evening.

Liberals have no judgment

March 12, 2009

All through the Bush years, a common scene played out: Republicans would point out that a particular left winger was a blithering idiot, proposing lame brained polices that simply could not achieve their stated goal. The leftie, unable to defend the policies, would respond “Don’t question my patriotism!” The Republicans would respond that “we’re not questioning your patriotism, we’re questioning your judgment.” The leftie would ignore this and keep on whining about patriotism.

With the advent of the Obama Administration, we now see lefties constantly criticizing Republicans’ patriotism (“Republicans just want to destroy the country” is my favorite so far), especially on the issue of going after Obama’s nominees (Megan McArdle’s post spurred me to write this, but Thomas Friedman’s whine in the NYT was a fine example of the genre). Some thoughts on the matter:

  1. Barack Obama is a big-government, high-tax leftie, and that’s the kind of Administration he’s running.
  2. If you want me to pay lots of taxes, then you damn well better be paying all of your taxes. That’s called reciprocity.
  3. IF you think the government should be big, and therefore taxes on other people should be high, but you think it’s perfectly fine for you to cheat on your taxes and not pay your “fair share”, then we are now deeply into issues of character and judgment. Those are issues that must be considered when judging a nominee.
  4. Another issue that should be judged is your willingness to follow the rules, and the law.  “The rules for thee, but not for me” is not the attitude I want to see in anybody in government.
  5. If the laws are so unworkable, change them.  Tell us why those laws are such a bad idea, and get them repealed.  I see no evidence of the Obama Administration being willing to do that.  In fact, I see the opposite.
  6. “Oh”, you say, “I just couldn’t find a nanny for my kids who was willing to be paid ‘above the table’.” Bullshit. Let’s say your nanny was willing to accept $30,000 / year under the table. Then you could pay her $45,000 – $50,000 / year and that would give her $30,000 / year take home pay. She’s better off because she’s working legally, you’re better off because you’re now living according to the rules and principles you wish to force on everyone else.
  7. What’s that you say? You don’t want to have to pay an extra $15,000 – $20,000 / year in taxes to the government? Neither do I. You’re the one who wants to work for the guy who wants to raise my taxes. You going to tell him it’s not right to force people to pay more to the government? No? Then I guess you should have paid the government everything it was owed, rather than keeping the money for yourself by paying your nanny under the table.
  8. Clinton had the same problems in 1993. President Bush did not have the same problems in 2001. So I’d say the real problem here is that Democrats are crooks, hypocrites, and your basic all around scum. People who favor the rest of us paying high taxes, but only because they have scams that let them get out of paying those same taxes themselves.

In short, I feel no sympathy for Obama, his nominees, or Democrats in general. You want a big government, then you damn well better be willing to follow all of its rules. If you can’t, then stop trying to force them on the rest of us.

Nice to know SOMEONE is paying attention

February 2, 2009

Too bad it’s Adrian Nathan of IndiaDaily

It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.

Dreams are dreams. Facts are facts. President Obama is surrounded by corrupt lobbyists ready to sell America cheap. One good silver lining – if Obama Adminsitration’s corruption index is 10, Bush Administration’s was 95. [Got to love the obligatory, and totally bullshit, Bush bashing here. Of course, Adrian doesn’t actually give any examples if this Bush corruption]

Take the example of the newest exposure of doubletalk from Obama! After calling for clean Governance, he appoints a Treasury Secretary who “forgot” to pay for his ‘business tax’ for years! Tom Daschle, a top lobbyist in Washington, who has amended his U.S. tax forms to pay back taxes with interest, is now Obama’s best choice for America’s chief health official.

Just imagine the kinds of stories an American journalist who cared about doing his or her job could write!

The WSJ is on target, too:

The Washington Post reports that Mr. Daschle has earned more than $5 million over the past two years, including $220,000 from the health-care industry he’s been nominated to regulate. Capitalism is wonderful, but at the very least Mr. Daschle’s record strips the veneer from President Obama’s moralizing that lobbying and special interest pleading are the root of all evil in Washington. In appointing Mr. Daschle, Mr. Obama is showing that lobbying is fine as long as it is done by people who agree with him.

My favorite comment on all this comes from Tom Maguire:

Obama’s emerging deficit-reduction strategy – keep nominating wealthy Dems to top posts and watch the back taxes flow in