Thursday, April 5, 2012

Did Obama really teach Constitutional Law?

Half Sigma ^ | April 5, 2012

As reported in a Wall Street Journal column:
He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."
Lochner v. New York is one of the most important cases in Constitutional Law. How could someone who was supposed to be a professor of Constitutional Law at a top-14 law school not know that Lochner v. New York was about the Supreme Court overturning a New York STATE statute and not a federal statute? And then he was thirty years off because Lochner was decided in 1905.
I used to think Obama earned his magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, but now I have to wonder.
Once again, Obama should have said what I wrote a few days ago:
The Supreme Court hasn’t found a major piece of economic legislation unconstitutional for violating the enumerated powers of Congress since the 1930s.

My statement is true, what Obama keeps saying shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.

Another Taxpayer-Funded Solar Company Looks Like a Failure!

National Legal & Policy Center ^ | April 5, 2012 | Paul Chesser

Biden Strickland photo
An Ohio-based solar company received millions of dollars in state and federal subsidies despite government officials’ knowledge that the company was in financial trouble, and now a local newspaper reports little activity at the manufacturer’s Perrysburg plant.
According to a report last month in The Toledo Blade, Willard & Kelsey Solar Group was lent $10 million by two state agencies even though the company showed little more than a half million dollars in revenue for 2009 – that being a grant from the Buckeye State – and a loss of $4.2 million. State officials told the newspaper that loan was completed because it had already been promised.
“We are just executing that commitment at that point,” Daryl Hennessy, assistant chief of the business services division at the Department of Development, told The Blade. “While it looked like a lot of bad things happened in between, the commitment had already been made. We weren't giving them any more money at that point. We weren’t adding on additional benefits at this point.”
Other records show that part of the money that flowed to Willard & Kelsey came from U.S. taxpayers, even though the company told the newspaper it received no federal funding. Reports posted at the Web site, which discloses information about funds dispensed out of the 2009 Recovery Act (aka the “stimulus”), shows a $6 million award to the Ohio Department of Development for its “Energizing Careers” project . Of that, according to a department press release from January 2011, $700,981 went to Willard & Kelsey “for worker training to manufacture highly efficient frameless Cadmium Telluride photovoltaic solar panels….”
The company did not show much of a track record that showed it was a worthy investment. The department press release noted the company began commercial operations in January 2011 “at a state-of-the-art 250,000-square-foot manufacturing facility.” In reality, it was more “art-of-the-state.”
“The company plans for a major expansion within the next six years,” the press release boasted, “building an additional 750,000-square-foot factory and employing 3,600 people.”
The program and grant were initiated under Ohio’s previous governor, Democrat Ted Strickland (in photo). Current Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, defeated Strickland in 2010.
“These training dollars ensure our workers are highly skilled in manufacturing that supports the evolving technologies that help our economy flourish,” said Lisa Patt-McDaniel, director of the Ohio Department of Development in Strickland’s administration. “By training employees in advanced energy manufacturing, these companies will see continued growth and success in our state.”
Besides the state backslapping, Vice President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke joined Gov. Strickland on a tour of Willard & Kelsey in June 2009.
“There are far too many valuable resources, too much valuable capital and especially too much human skill and know-how embedded in America’s manufacturing sector to allow it to go to waste,” Biden said in Perrysburg. “The President and I are committed to doing everything we can to prepare the manufacturing sector for the future and to protect families and communities hurt by recent job losses.”
Apparently Willard & Kelsey is another of the Obama administration's solar failures that fell through the cracks. The Blade reported last month that the company’s development has been marked by delays and “operational issues,” with only one production line started since the company’s inception. Another promised line has been held up, and the company has asked the state to extend a deadline for its initiation to Sept. 2012. But first-hand observations by Blade reporter Kris Turner don’t look promising:
Four cars were in the company's parking lot at 3 p.m. Tuesday (March 13). The front door to the facility was locked and no one answered knocks at that door or the employee entrance. Michael Cicak, the company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board, was contacted by phone but said he was in a meeting. He had previously refused to respond to phone calls from The Blade….
The company laid off workers in January because it was making changes to its production line to increase the efficiency of those panels, Mr. Cicak said in a previous interview.
Although Mr. Cicak has said the company employed more than 100 people at times, state documents tell a different story. A document from April, 2011, states the company had 72 employees and intended to create 133 jobs. None of the other documents lists more than 72 employees.
Crony socialism may have contributed to Willard & Kelsey’s friendly reception from state officials under the previous administration. Company employees -- mostly executives that included Cicak and President James Appold -- donated $24,400 in 2010 to Strickland’s campaign to retain the governorship. The grant to Willard & Kelsey was announced January 5, 2011, five days prior to Kasich’s inauguration.
While not a big illustration from a cost-to-U.S.-taxpayers standpoint, Willard & Kelsey are no less an example of failed government picking winners and losers than are First Solar, Abound Solar, and Solyndra, among others. It also shows how much the Green energy agenda and policy practices extended to the states. It sure didn't help Gov. Strickland keep his job.

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center.

President Obama's Bullying Pulpit ^ | April 4, 2012 | Ken Blackwell
President Obama this week took advantage of the fine spring weather and a meeting with Canada’s and Mexico’s leaders to make an extraordinary statement in the White House Rose Garden. He responded to questions about his health care takeover. ObamaCare is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine Justices are expected to rule on the measure by this June. Their ruling could come right in the middle of a heated presidential election campaign.
Mr. Obama sternly lectured those members of the high court who are about to vote on the legislation formally titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The president said that he is “confident” that the members of the Supreme Court will rule that ObamaCare is constitutional. He stated that the individual mandate is the only way to assure that people with pre-existing conditions are covered. The individual mandate is that part of the law that was most seriously contested in three unprecedented days of oral arguments.
If Congress can force you to buy health insurance, Justices asked, what can it not do? Many of those who presented “friend of the court” briefs to the Supreme Court have argued, compellingly, I think, that the Founders rebelled against a king and Parliament who taxed us for tea. The king and Parliament never ordered us to buy the tea. Is it likely, opponents of ObamaCare ask, that those Founders would have given a president and Congress the kind of power they would never have permitted a distant king and Parliament to exercise over us?
“Justices should understand,” Mr. Obama said in a stern and almost menacing tone, that to rule this law unconstitutional would be an act of “judicial activism.” The law, he said, is a “duly constituted law” that was passed by a democratically elected Congress.
Talk about voter intimidation! The Justices will soon vote. They are on notice that Barack Obama will not only disapprove of them if they don’t vote his way, he clearly intends to campaign against the Supreme Court if they rule ObamaCare unconstitutional.
What’s the problem with this? Didn’t President Franklin D. Roosevelt campaign against the Supreme Court when “nine old men” overturned the National Industrial Recovery Act, the centerpiece of his New Deal legislation? Yes.
Even the imperious FDR, however, never hectored the members of the Supreme Court as they sat in black-robed silence in the front row at his State of the Union Address. Mr. Obama did this brazenly and outrageously at his 2010 speech before Congress.
Didn’t Abraham Lincoln criticize the Supreme Court in his Inaugural Address in 1861? Actually, no. Lincoln did say in the presence of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that the Court’s rulings deserved respect, but that not all political questions could be considered settled once they were submitted to “that eminent tribunal.” Taney may not have liked what he heard, but he certainly was not intimidated. Nor did he refuse to administer the oath of office to President Lincoln.
What about President Reagan? Didn’t he object to the Supreme Court’s overturning the abortion laws of all fifty states? He did indeed. But he submitted his arguments to the Supreme Court as formal statements of Executive Branch legal opinion. He sent his Solicitor General up the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with all dignity and respect for the independence of the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. That’s because Reagan revered the Constitution.
Theodore Roosevelt referred to the White House as a “Bully Pulpit.” He meant, of course, that it was a great place for presidents to offer moral leadership. He was right. But Mr. Obama has taken that a dangerous step beyond. He has made the White House a “Bullying Pulpit.” Let’s hope those Justices who will vote on ObamaCare’s constitutionality are not intimidated by this unprecedented and dangerous move.

Shelby Steele: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin [Outstanding Analysis by Black Thinker!]

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | 4/5/12 | Shelby Steele
The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.
...The civil rights community and the liberal media live by the poetic truth that America is still a reflexively racist society, and that this remains the great barrier to black equality. But this "truth" has a lot of lie in it. America has greatly evolved since the 1960s. There are no longer any respectable advocates of racial segregation. And blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

He Won't Allow...

Elizabeth Warren


Family Member Of George Zimmerman To The NAACP: 'There Will Be Blood On Your Hands'!

Business Insider ^ | 4/3/12 | Michael Brendan Dougherty

The Daily Caller has a report about a letter purporting to be sent by a family member of George Zimmerman–the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin–to the head of the Seminole County NAACP, Turner Clayton...
Here's a sample:

"If something happens to George as a result of the race furor stirred up by this mischaracterization of George there will be blood on your hands as well as the rest of the racists that have rushed to judgment. You need to call off the dogs. Period. Publicly and swiftly".
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Who are America's Not-So-Friendly Bankers? ^ | April 5, 2012 | Bob Beauprez
During his campaign for re-election, don't expect Barack Obama to bring up the national debt. By the time Americans are voting, Obama will have added more than $5.5 trillion of red ink during his first term in office – an increase of more than 50% beyond the total debt accumulated by the previous 43 presidents in over 200 years.
Rather than alarmed by the debt, Obama's budget would put America on a glide path to accumulate an additional $10 trillion of debt over just the next decade, and that is undoubtedly a grossly underestimated prediction.

The above chart, courtesy of the House Republican Study Committee, demonstrates the distribution of debt to other nations and notably many would fall in the same category as China as "less than friendly" to America's best interests. 
In addition to the amount of the debt – which now exceeds our nation's GDP – many analysts are increasingly concerned about who holds all that credit; specifically foreign governments have about a third of the total. A lot of Americans are generally aware that China is the largest foreign creditor with over a trillion dollars of US Treasury IOUs. But, China is far from alone.

Fair-Share Hare

Obama wants a one-party media. (Obama to media - Obey)

Times247 ^ | 04/04/12 | Jeff Kuhner
Obama is trying to impose ideological conformity on the press. He is demanding that the media more favorably report his positions and present him as a pragmatic centrist. During a recent speech to journalists, he denounced their supposed equivalence on the burning issues of the day. Instead, Mr. Obama insisted that they portray his leadership in a more glowing light. He brazenly violated media independence, putting government pressure on journalists akin to that in authoritarian socialist states.
“This bears on your reporting,” Mr. Obama said to the Associated Press. “I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And an equivalence is presented which I think reinforces peoples’ cynicism about Washington in general. This is not one of those situations where there’s an equivalency.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Supreme Court Lands in Oz
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 04/05/2012 | DANIEL HENNINGER
'I am confident," announced the president of the United States, "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 so it was on Monday that Barack Obama, anticipating a loss before the Supreme Court, added the third branch of government to the list of villains he will run against in his re-election campaign.
Many are saying the president should know Marbury v. Madison. He does. It doesn't matter. If something gets in his way, Barack Obama hammers it—whether courts or Congress. The left likes that. It remains to find out if the rest of the country wants the judicial and legislative branches subordinated to a national leader.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Word to Obama: Solar Still Sucks ^ | April 5, 2012 | John Ransom

If you thought solar sucked last week, it sucks even more now that Solar Trust of America has filed for bankruptcy. The name is kind of fitting in the ironic and Orwellian fashion we’ve come to expect from the Obama administration. The name symbolizes the bankruptcy of Obama’s energy policy: solar… trust… America. Oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron. If it weren’t this close {ß}to being a tragedy, we could all laugh.
“Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world's largest solar power project,” reports Reuters, “on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.”
Obama critics contend that solar is just another part of his failed energy policy. But they would be overlooking the benefits to America’s energy security that Obama believes photo-ops bring us.
Because the bankruptcy is just another one of the Obama administration’s cash-for-photo-op investments that has crashed and burned. Most politicians charge big contributors money for photo-op with the president.
In another quest to fundamentally change America, Obama awards government loan guarantees along with photo-ops to big donors.
So fortunately for America’s national security- and energy security we will now at least always have the memories- backed up by various action photos suitable for framing.
Although the Department of Energy was eager to approve the Solar Trust for $2 billion worth of government loan guarantees, the company rejected the offer in a scramble to find technology that would actually allow their plant to work. Its amazing that at the time the Department of Energy was pushing a loan to the company, the company was realizing the equipment on which the loan was predicated wouldn’t work.
Once billed as the brain trust behind one of the largest solar projects ever- the Blythe Solar Power Project in California’s Coachella Valley- Solar Trust of America will end its government-sponsored Gong Show appearance with the tinny reverberation of failure that will echo for the whole industry.
“The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the southern California desert,” writes Reuters, “which last April won a conditional commitment for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the bankruptcy will affect that project. Solar Trust did not receive the loan guarantee.”
While Obama administration was denied the opportunity to throw money at Solar Trust- only by the grace of the company’s own good judgment- make no mistake, Obama’s policy of throwing money at other of these uneconomic, sunshine and blue sky investments, is responsible for the bankruptcy as much as any other factor; actually, probably more so.
So far, the administration has made $34 billion in loan guarantees to various green energy projects, many of them in a solar industry already rocked by over-supply and poor economics.
What solar needs now is fewer start-ups, less investment, not more. And everyone outside of the government central-failures understands this. The more money that’s been thrown at solar, the smaller the industry has become.
TAN ChartGuggenheim Solar (Stock Symbol: TAN), an exchange-traded fund that roughly follows the MAC Global Solar Energy Index, representative of broader trends in solar, has lost close to 62 percent of its value year-to-date. Over a three year period, the fund has lost roughly 16 percent while the S&P 500 has returned around 25 percent. All this, at a time when government support and subsidies for the solar industry was at record levels. In 2008 TAN approached $300 per share. It now trades at $23.07.
TAN data by YCharts
Wall Street seems to know what the government can’t figure out for itself: Solar still sucks, investment-wise. That’s not going to change until the fundamental problem of creating electricity from the sun’s radiation at economical prices is solved. If there is a government role in that solution, it would be in putting money- a lot less money- into basic research that solves the economic problem, not funding private investment.
Because, once solar can compete with nuclear and natural gas and coal, then hurray for solar!
Until then, however, the government, try as it might, won’t be able to bridge the gap between free market -or black market- solutions and central planning schemes no matter the level of subsidy support, the number of loan guarantees or the imposition of fees on competing energy sources in order to make solar more attractive to consumers.
It’s ironic that at a time the Obama administration is twisting the Constitution in order to nationalize healthcare in the name of controlling runaway healthcare prices that they are simultaneously pursing policies in another huge part of our economy, which, of their own admission, have made energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”
As has been proven by Obama’s most recent photo-op-as-energy policy strategy regarding the Keystone Pipeline, these policies don’t add up to only economic failure for the administration, but to the only failure that Obama really seems to care about: political failure.
But it’s nice to see that finally, in something, Obama, in my most insincere imitation of Bill Clinton, “feels our pain.”
Let’s make him feel it in November when it’s colder outside and we get more record cold via, um, global warming.

Thomas Sowell: Political word games (Obama: In short he is simply lying) ^ | Posted: April 4, 2012 | THOMAS SOWELL
One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.
That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.
He replied: “I’m 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.”
But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”?
The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!
Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history — Marbury v. Madison in 1803 — Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.
They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents.
In short, he is simply lying.
Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying Presidents of the United States, I prefer that they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.
But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.
He is also counting on something else — namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.
One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well.
In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind “conservative commentators” that they have complained about “judicial activism” — which he redefines as the idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
First of all, every law that the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was “a duly constituted and passed law.”

Sheriff Joe flays Fox News anchor; Arpaio fires back at reporter in feisty interview!

WND ^ | 4/4/12 | Joe Kovacs

Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio reminded everyone why he’s considered “America’s toughest sheriff” when he took a Fox News anchor to task in a live interview this afternoon.
Appearing on “America Live” with Megyn Kelly, Arpaio told Kelly she was wrong in some of her reporting about a federal investigation into his treatment of Hispanics in Maricopa County, Ariz.
The U.S. Justice Department is looking into allegations of racial profiling, a charge Arpaio denies, and the federal government wants Arpaio to allow an independent monitor to oversee the conduct of his office.
The Obama administration announced it’s now preparing to sue Arpaio. The Justice Department has said negotiations have broken down with the sheriff, who also believes President Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service card are likely forgeries.
Though Kelly never mentioned concerns over Obama’s eligibility in her interview, she did ask Arpaio why it would be a deal-breaker to have a federal monitor in his presence to make sure everything in his county office were “legit.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

2012 Odyssey


Future Dems

The Jackson-Sharpton Revised Bible

HIS mandate

Strong Like BS

Life Boats


Making us sick!


Light 'em up!

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers!

The Globe and Mail ^ | 04/05/2011 | Paul Waldie
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Gas numbers game is a loser for Obama (A majority rightfully blame Obama)

washington times ^ | 4/4/2012 | By Dave Boyer

Obama’s poll numbers are up and the country’s unemployment figures are down — but $4 gas poses a potent threat to the incumbent’s re-election bid, polls show.
Voters are giving Mr. Obama an emphatic thumbs down for his handling of gas prices — 68 percent disapprove of his response to the problem in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The White House and Mr. Obama’s re-election team are acutely aware of the political danger. The president has given seven speeches in March alone on energy and gas prices in an attempt to convince the public that there is no “silver bullet” solution.
“The Obama campaign knows that high gas prices can sink his presidency,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. “They are throwing the kitchen sink at this problem through advertising, campaign appearances and high-profile speeches.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

On the stump, Dems split with arrogant Obama over Keystone XL pipeline!

The Hill ^ | 4/5/2012 | By Andrew Restuccia
Obama has steered clear of taking a firm stance on the Keystone pipeline, but many Democrats running for Senate don’t have the same luxury.

Eight of the 18 non-incumbent Democrats running for Senate surveyed by The Hill either steadfastly support the pipeline or oppose it outright, breaking with Obama’s decision to reserve judgment on the project until federal regulators conduct a full review.
Republican Senate hopefuls have made the pipeline – which would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast – a top campaign issue. The emphasis on the pipeline has forced many Democratic candidates to stake out a clear position on the project, whether they like it or not.
TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline has ignited a firestorm in Washington.
President Obama denied a cross-border permit for the pipeline in January, infuriating Republicans and launching a thorny political debate in Congress that has forced vulnerable Senate Democrats to weigh in on the project. But Obama has said his decision to reject the pipeline was based not on its merits, but on a 60-day, GOP-backed deadline included in legislation to extend the payroll tax cut.

As gas prices near a national average of $4 per gallon, the Keystone fight on Capitol Hill has spread to the campaign trail, even in states that are nowhere near the pipeline route.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Do-Nothing Democrats ^ | April 4, 2012 | Reince Priebus
Today Americans will witness an extraordinarily rare event.
The president will sign a bill that originated in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act.
Sadly, it is almost unheard of for Obama, who ran in 2008 on post-partisanship, to actually engage in such bipartisanship for the good of the economy. House Republicans have passed 27 other jobs bills (with some Democratic support) that Senate Democrats and the president have ignored.
When it comes to creating jobs and helping the economy, Democrats talk a good game. But that’s about it. The JOBS Act is a start, but we could have accomplished much more by now.
We could have…
• Helped entrepreneurs
• Reduced regulatory burdens
• Increased energy production
• Increased access to capital for job creators
• Provided middle class tax relief
That’s just a sampling. But all 27 bills would have helped create jobs and grow the economy. Thanks to Democrats’ intransigence, though, they are just 27 missed opportunities. Make no mistake: Democrats’ inaction is politically motivated. Because of their failed record on jobs, the deficit, debt, healthcare, energy, and more, they have nothing to run on in 2012. So they decided that if they can’t run on their own record, they’ll distort Republicans’ record.
President Obama has made it clear that he wants to run against a do-nothing Congress. But there’s a problem with that strategy. The Republican House has been doing plenty. It’s the Democrat-controlled Senate that does nothing. They haven’t even passed a budget in three years.
Obama’s hypocrisy is astonishing. He attacks Republicans for—of all things—passing a budget. Meanwhile, his own 2013 budget went down in the House 0-414. The Senate voted down his 2012 budget 0-97.
President Obama went so far as to call Republicans’ Path to Prosperity budget “a Trojan Horse.” If he really wants to talk about Trojan Horses, let’s talk about his 2008 campaign. Americans who supported Obama in ’08 surely did not expect “hope and change” to become “fear and division.”
They would have expected the candidate who campaigned as a transformative, post-partisan uniter to work with House Republicans on bipartisan bills, instead of signing just one. They expected policies that were good for the economy and struggling families.
Yet Obama’s policies have not been in the interest of most Americans. In their efforts to grow government, raise taxes, over-regulate businesses, and coddle the special interests, Democrats have done plenty—all destructive, to be sure.
But on growing the economy, creating jobs, and reducing the deficit, they have been nothing but Do-Nothing Democrats. That’s something America can do without. Just wait till November.