To MSNBC: What About President Obama's "Economic Acumen"? How Has That Worked Out?

Funny, FUNNY headline today on MSNBC: "Romney sells his economic acumen, but voters may not be buying".

That's flat hilarious!!! Of course they mean compared with Obama's "economic acumen", right? Our economy is stuck in a ditch that Obama said he'd have fixed long before now and HE has "economic acumen"? He was hailed as the smartest president ever. He AND the lame-stream media went out of their way to claim that no one on the planet knew what was wrong and how to fix it better than he did. If he was so smart, why is he now saying he didn't know how bad it was? Isn't that an admission that he was ignorant regarding the problem instead(!) of being the smartest about it?

How the media can say such things with a collective straight face is amusing isn't it?

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

Taxing The Rich At Odds With The Electric Car Agenda

President Obama's progressive policies are running headlong into each other, mutual destruction style. Mr. Obama's tax plan, meet Mr. Obama's 'plan' for electric cars!

There's a big problem with electric cars. They're expensive. So expensive in fact that the market for them is pretty much limited to people making more than $200,000 per year according to Robert Bryce's quote of Deloitte Consulting about this.

But, wait a minute! Aren't those the same people whose income is about to take a big dive if Obama gets his way with his tax-the-rich scheme? Seems to me that those 'evil rich' people will be less able and less inclined to buy those electric cars that only they used to be able to afford.

Progressives tend to believe they can create (force) a market where one doesn't exist by force of power or taxpayer money. Problem is, that only works in college classrooms ... at progressive institutions. In the real world, the market is determined by what people want and can afford. Progressives may not like capitalism but, in the end, it rules the day. Produce a product few people want (because it doesn't work or meet a real need) or can afford and they won't buy it.

That approach didn't work in communist Russia when the government decided to control shoe production. They created a standard shoe that would be made throughout the country and they made more than enough for everyone. Yet, there was a shoe shortage. Why? Because no Russians wanted the shoe designed by their government. Those plentiful shoes piled up in government-owned shoe stores and people went without shoes because that was easier on their feet than wearing a bureaucracy's creation.

Hmmmmm. Is it 'back to the drawing board' time on your policies yet Mr. President? Perhaps on your progressive approach to things as well?

Even Progressives 'Get' The Issue With ObamaCare

"The Far Right" wasn't so nutty after all! We claimed from the beginning that ObamaCare would cost more, not less, and that it would add to the deficit in spite of President Obama's assurances to the contrary. We used common sense at the time. We had no choice because ObamaCare's instigators were hiding the truth and playing shell games with our tax money. We suspected, based simply on common sense, what has become provably true now. Check out two NRO articles.

First, John Fund's description of what happened includes this:

"As early as last September, a panel of liberal journalists on NBC News consisting of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post all agreed that Obama’s “biggest political mistake” was devoting so much time and attention to health care. “The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake,” Ignatius summed up. “That’s just not how a president makes good policy.”"

The reaction of us on 'the far right': Well, DUH!!! Those kinds of comments are startling to progressives across America but we far right crazy people can reasonably and quite rationally claim We Told You So!

Second is Michael Barone's article on the real cost of ObamaCare. Smoke and mirrors at a minimum. Lies and subterfuges would be a more honest assessment.

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

Progressives Probably Can't Connect The Dots Between Over-Protective Parents And Over-Protective Government. Government = Our Helmet For Life!

Interesting story about crash helmets for crawlers and toddlers. It's kinda funny to read about the fairly liberal Today Show talking about that as bad for kids because they'll become risk averse and be less likely to succeed at things that have potential for being rough, physical and risky.

An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.

Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.

Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.

Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!

We Need To Understand What We're Up Against With The Middle East And Islamism

Too many Americans don't know history very well thanks largely to the sanitizing efforts of the progressive movement in our education system. Too many of those who have heard the historical facts don't know how to add them up, thanks again to PC-think being ingrained in our kids for several generations now. And the media whose job used to be informing us about the facts of things are so invested in the progressive PC-think culture that they won't share the truth because it doesn't line up with the appeasement philosophy within the progressive agenda.

Every once in a while however someone in the media explains elements of what's going on in the Middle East in an informative and honest way. We should pay more attention for our future's sake. If you're one of those rare folks who are interested in the truth, won't hide from it, won't irrationally dismiss it, and care about where it'll take us if we ignore it, read Clifford May's article, "It's Not The Arab Spring, It's The Nahda". in NRO earlier today.

Four Articles Dealing With Fundamental Issues Dividing Left From Right In America

There seems to be little necessity to add my own commentary to the following articles. They do much to describe and illuminate the divisiveness that's growing rapidly and, too often, rabidly in America. These aspects of the problem are important for us to consider for the sake of our future. We need to care about understanding what divides us and why it does. We can't make much progress turning away from this unfortunate trajectory on which the political left has set us until we begin to care about our country, indeed our constitution.

They (Liberals) Don't (Can't!) Know Us by Dennis Prager.

Saving Sovereignty by John Fonte.

Argument From Disparity by Thomas Sowell.

The Constitution's Comeback by Michael Barone.

For The PC Sake We Ignore The Far Worse Violence Problem Among Young Blacks

A recent article on black-on-black violence caught my attention. Average Americans are too little aware of the problem that Lee Habeeb's description of the problem illuminates. I'm shocked that the media and our country's leaders spend so little time/effort addressing this, aren't you?

A President Of The USA Who Doesn't Know The Role Or Authority Of The Supreme Court Doesn't Know Squat About The Constitution Or Maybe He Just Doesn't Care

Per President Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". And he said that it would be an act of "judicial activism" to overturn his health care legislation.

There are so many things wrong with those knuckle-headed statements that I hardly know where to begin. Basically, he doesn't understand the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Nor does he understand either the authority or role of the Supreme Court.

First, ObamaCare did NOT pass by "a strong majority". In the House it passed 219 to 212 ... by 4 votes out of 431 (4 yea votes going the other way would have defeated it 216 to 215). Even 34 Democrats voted against it! To call it "a strong majority" and to claim it would be "unprecedented" are nothing short of lies as Thomas Sowell had the courage to say. Sowell also exposed the deceptive nature of so much that President Obama does/says. He's expertly adept at distortion and at cover-ups when his deceptions are exposed.

Second, it is nowhere near unprecedented of the Supreme Court to strike down a law of economic or any other importance. It's what they do! Hello!

Third, to say that the Supreme Court isn't paying attention to the 'will' of the majority in the legislature President Obama is demonstrating his complete lack of understanding that the Supreme Court's job is to NOT rule based on any will of any majority. Their job is to determine whether the expressed will of Congress' majority is constitutional. It doesn't and, constitutionally, ought not matter to the Supreme Court justices how popular a piece of legislation is. OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT (IE, OUR VERY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) IS, IN FACT, DEPENDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT NOT BENDING TO THE WILL OF EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT!!!

And to hear President Obama claim "judicial activism" is laughable! His policies and actions comprise the very definition of (progressive) activism in a major branch of government!!! He only needs to look into a mirror to see who's practicing 'activism' in our federal government ... executive activism in his case.

He is SOOOOOOO off-base with his comments directed at the Supreme Court that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh about how ridiculous his thinking is. Cry about what his approach to national governance means to our constitution and our freedom.

John Fund's article covers all the various aspects of President Obama's 'warning' to the Supreme Court is the best of many I've seen.

GADS PEOPLE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM THIS IS? HOW SERIOUS A RISK IT IS TO OUR REPUBLIC?