Quote of the day:
Cartoon of the day
Articles of Interest
6 Reasons Barack Obama Is A Failed President
It’s easy to just chalk up Barack Obama’s terrible performance as President to “liberalism” or “incompetence,” but it goes so much further than that. Obama is a ballerina running a steel mill, a fight fan working as a bouncer, a go cart aficionado racing in NASCAR. Barack Obama was elected because Americans were frustrated with the Republican Party, because he did a good job of reading uplifting speeches, and because Americans thought that if they elected the first black President, it would be a seminal moment for race relations in America. Unfortunately, GOP awfulness didn’t translate into Democratic goodness, those speeches got dull in a hurry, race relations have gotten worse, and none of that has anything to do with Obama actually being capable of handling the most important job on the planet. Maybe next time, voters will ask the most basic question about the candidates running for President: are they competent to do the job or will we end up with another Obama?
1) He was unprepared for the job: As Sarah Palin said back in 2008, “My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.”
Yet, that’s exactly what the presidency was for Barack Obama. He had never run a business. He had never been a governor. His performance as a state senator in Illinois and during his very brief time as a senator was undistinguished.
There was nothing about Barack Obama’s background that should have led anyone to think that he would be up to the job of being President and as it turns out, he isn’t.
2) His aims are ideological and political, not practical: Barack Obama’s only concerns are…
A) Is this good for me? B) Is this good for the Democrat Party? C) Is this good for liberalism?
Whether it’s good for the country or not doesn’t even enter into the equation perhaps because Obama starts with the assumption that anything that’s good for him, the Democrat Party, and for liberalism must be good for the country by default. Sadly, the long line of broken promises, mishaps, and disasters that have defined his presidency say otherwise.
Who Wants War?
Some pundits are saying that President Obama has been floundering in his response to the ISIS crisis because public opinion polls show most Americans don’t want another war.
In all my 84 years, I cannot recall a time when most Americans wanted war. That is something we should be proud of. But wars are not always optional.
Even World War II — which some have called “the good war” — was not something that most Americans wanted. But the Japanese took that decision out of our hands when they bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. And Hitler removed any possible doubt when he declared war on us shortly afterward, making sure that we were in the war all over the world.
No one has promoted the dangerous notion that war is optional more than Barack Obama. He declared peace in Iraq when he pulled American troops out, and he declared victory over Al Qaeda because his administration had killed bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALS). But all this make-believe has come back to haunt him, as make-believe often does.
Make no mistake about it, make-believe wins elections — and winning elections is Obama’s thing. The big problem is that the things that win elections are not the things that win wars.
With an eye on the upcoming Congressional elections, Barack Obama has assured all and sundry that there will be no American “boots on the ground” in the fight against ISIS. But telling your enemy in advance what you will or will not do is not the way to win wars.
This is not rocket science, and Obama either already knows it or he has military advisers who will tell him, if he will listen. But the military have their priorities and Obama has his, even if his political priorities can end up costing far more American lives than hitting ISIS with everything we have got ASAP.
The longer the war drags on, through half-measures and tentative tactics, the longer ISIS has to recalibrate its strategies and to sneak its agents into the United States, to launch terrorist attacks inside the American homeland. We can either kill them over there now or have them kill Americans here later.
I don’t want war. I hate the very idea of war. However there are times when you don’t have a choice. When someone is waging war against you it is insanity not to fight back. Once that decision is made is is, in my opinion, only sane to fight back with all your might. Smash them. Kill them. Take from them their very ability to wage war against anyone. Half measures and fiddling around will never be successful. And I swear if I hear the phrase “boots on the ground” one more time my damn head will explode.
Report: Administration’s Efforts to Cut Red Tape Cost Economy $23 Billion
Mechanism for ‘streamlining’ regulations actually used to increase burden on businesses, taxpayers
by Elizabeth Harrington
Administration efforts to cut red tape have actually added $23 billion in costs to the economy this year, according to a new report released by the American Action Forum (AAF).
Cabinet agencies are required to issue a “retrospective review” every six months on how they are improving burdensome regulations, in order to comply with Executive Order 13563, which was issued by President Barack Obama in January 2011. However, AAF has found that these efforts rarely reduce the costs of regulation.
“Despite attempts to reduce red tape and ‘promote economic growth,’ recent regulatory reform plans from the administration actually added more than $23 billion in costs and 8.9 million paperwork burden hours,” AAF said. “Only three agencies managed to reduce costs.”
The report analyzed agencies’ regulatory plans from January through early August, which included a review of 529 regulations, an average of 22.5 per agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contributed the most in costs to the economy with $14.4 billion added from the 21 regulations it reviewed. The costs are mostly attributed to its “Tier 3” rule to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, which will add 150,000 hours in paperwork.
The purpose of the executive order is for the government to modify “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome” rules, though AAF has found that retrospective reviews allow agencies to expand regulations.
“In the past, AAF has found that not all regulations are ‘streamlined’ or ‘repealed,’ but rather many are expanded,” the report said. “In fact, that’s the main reason why many cabinet agencies are actually adding regulatory burdens in these biannual plans.”
AAF also found that federal agencies have only reviewed one third of the more than 400 regulations identified for reform earlier this year.
Lefty journalists circle wagons around whining Politico reporter, attack Stephen Hayes
If you didn’t see the panel that the Politico writer is whining about you would believe that the poor little dear was attacked viciously by Stephan Hayes. I did see it and it was no such thing. Problem with poor dear thing is that she can’t seem to take the heat. There is a remedy for that.
Andrew Klavan – How to Speak Racist
“Feminists” versus the Truth
The Climate March to Nowhere
Anti-climate-change marchers took to the streets of Manhattan in the hundreds of thousands over the weekend to demand international action to fight global warming.
The throng would have better advised to parade in downtown Beijing, assuming the Politburo wouldn’t have called out the infantry.
China is the locus of the alleged crime against the planet that is carbon emissions, yet the marchers staged their event in the United States, where prior to last year emissions had been declining (thanks, in part, to the natural-gas revolution, which oddly didn’t get much love from the climate marchers).
China is responsible for 27 percent of carbon emissions, more than any other country, and uses as much coal as the rest of the world. Since 1990, it has matched the U.S. in cumulative carbon emissions. China is representative of a developing world that is taking the global lead on emissions, at nearly 60 percent of the total.
There are many things we should be attempting to persuade China to stop doing: Arbitrarily ruling over its own people. Imprisoning and torturing dissidents. Occupying Tibet. Making aggressive territorial claims in its region.
Compared with all of these, availing itself of the wonders of the industrial economy is welcome. And if we can’t stop China from doing these other things — self-evidently violations of human rights or international norms — how are we going to keep it from continuing to ramp up its economic growth, as any rational society would?
The answer is that we almost certainly aren’t. Anti-global-warming activism consists of symbolic protests against a highly complex planetary phenomenon we understand poorly and don’t control.
Worth A Look
3 Killed, 30 Wounded in Chicago Weekend Violence
Lois Lerner’s Sob Story
If she’s so distraught about her damaged reputation, she might consider confessing.
Last But Not Least…
Do Statistical Disparities Mean Injustice?
How many times have we heard laments such as “women are 50 percent of the population but only 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs” and, as the Justice Department recently found, “blacks are 54 percent of the population in Newark, New Jersey, but 85 percent of pedestrian stops and 79 percent of arrests”? If one believes that people should be represented socio-economically according to their numbers in the population, then statistical disparities represent injustices that demand government remedies. Before we jump to conclusions about what disparities mean and whether they are indicators of injustice, we might examine some other disparities to see what we can make of them.
According to a recent study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times as likely to attack and kill men than they are women. If sinister motivation is attributed for this disparity, as is done in the cases of sex and racial disparities, we can only conclude that sharks are sexist. Another sex disparity is despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. I wonder what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men.
Another gross statistical disparity is despite the fact that Jews are less than 3 percent of the U.S. population and a mere 0.2 percent of the world’s population, between 1901 and 2010, Jews were 35 percent of American and 22 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.
There are other disparities that we might acknowledge with an eye to corrective public policy. Asian-Americans routinely score the highest on the math portion of the SAT, whereas blacks score the lowest. The population statistics for South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their populations is black. In states such as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented in terms of their percentages in the general population. When this kind of “segregation” is found in schooling, the remedy is busing.
There are loads of international examples of ethnic disparities.