Obama's Success is Our Failure

     Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." He took quite alot of heat for that statement, but he knew that the way in which Barrack Obama wanted to transform the country meant less wealth and more economic hardship for everyone. And now with almost 6 trillion dollars added to the national debt in just under four years, an unemployment rate that has stayed above eight percent for more months than at any other time in our history, with GDP growth well under two percent when the post-WWII average is 3.2 percent and with 3 million fewer people working than when the President took office, President Obama says his plan has worked. This unbelievable statement was recently uttered by the President on the heels of his comments in Roanoke, Virginia in which he made his now famous statement that entrepreneurs didn't build their own businesses.
     But I'd like to focus on the President's recent statement that his plan has worked. I think when one looks at the economic data and the malaise that has resulted from it, the only logical conclusion is that this is what the President thinks of as success. And therein lies the worst policy that President Obama has saddled this nation with, the policy of hopelessness. Because, if Barrack Obama and his defenders are saying that the current economic state is the best we can achieve, that is in deed a very dark picture for the future.
     This past week was the hundredth anniversary of the Milton Friedman's birth. Milton Friedman was one of the most brilliant economic minds of recent history. Mr. Friedman once asked the rhetorical question, "Is it somehow more honorable to work in one's political self-interest as opposed to one's economic self-interest?" This statement is supported by thousands of years of history. Simply stated, the bigger a government grows the more impoverished a nation becomes. There are no examples in history where this is not the case. It wasn't the government which made the United States a great nation that was able to advance the human condition more than any other in history, it was individual liberty that allowed people to work in their own economic self-interest which created opportunity for other people. It is individual freedom which allows for advancements in medicine, technology and industry to thrive. I have outlined above the harvest we have reaped as a result of President Obama and others working in their own political self-interest. Which do you prefer?
     We are now three months away from the most important election in any of our lifetimes. This election is a choice between a big government top down approach where bureaucrats dole out entitlements to an ever dependant population or a limited government approach where the free market can bring the most prosperity to the greatest number of people. We have seen what comes from President Obama's success, I hope the majority of my countrymen will hand him the failure that Rush Limbaugh talked about almost four years ago.

A Killing Spree-The Latest Opportunity For The Left

     When I awoke this morning and heard of the massacre in an Aurua, Colorado movie theater, I was shocked and sickened. I must admit that my cynical nature prompted me to wonder how long it would take the left to use this horrendous criminal act to push their political agenda. I didn't have to wait long. ABC's own Brian Ross did some rudimentary investigation to find a Tea Party member with the same name as the movie theater killer. He promptly went on the air and drew his viewers into an assumption that the killer was a member of the Tea Party. Never mind that the Tea Party gentleman was more than twice the shooter's age , and except for the name, had nothing else in common with him.
     This is just the latest in a long history of activism journalism practiced by the mainstream media. When political points can be scored, the truth and facts be damned. The disturbing aspect of this behavior is that they have no shame about lying for their cause. I remember hearing that Bill Bradley, the editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal, admitted that they deliberately printed stories they knew to be false just to make a better case against President Nixon. Years later, while defending Mr. Bradley, disgraced newsman Dan Rather said, "It was a corrupt administration and we had to do whatever we could to take it down."  So Mr. Rather bestows upon the press the job of jury, judge and executioner. Funny, I thought the job of the press and the rest of media was to gather facts through thorough investigation and report them to their fellow citizens, whatever those facts uncovered. And why does Mr. Rather think there is honor in becoming corrupt to expose what he thinks is corruption.
     This bald-faced admission of abdicating all journalistic integrity was repeated in the 1990's by Easson Jordan, who was the editor of news for CNN. He admitted to airing stories written by the Saddam Hussein regime that they knew weren't true, simply so they could keep their bureau in Iraq. I wonder if it ever occurred to Mr. Jordan that he severely damaged the integrity of his organization as well as journalism in general.
     More recently, when the Trayvon Martin controversy was heating up, NBC, CBS and CNN all had to admit to journalistic malpractice. They wanted so badly to report that George Zimmerman was motivated by racism that, in the absence of any evidence, they fabricated facts to suit their agenda. They only admitted to their corrupt behavior after being exposed by alternative media sources.
    In the coming days and weeks be prepared for an onslaught of cries for stricter gun laws, blame to be focused on Conservative talk radio and vague links to be made between the killer and right-wing organizations. Just remember that the blame for these or any other killings is to be placed squarely on those who perpetrate the acts, and nothing or no one else. And one more thing, if you happen to run into Dan Rather, tell him I have some phony National Guard documents I'll sell him very cheap.

The Outlaw Barrack Obama

     When President Obama announced his dictate last week regarding a major change in the immigration policy, it was just one more example of the lawless behavior of an out of control executive. Whether you agree with the policy or not, the President does not have the Constitutional authority to make law. The people's representatives in Congress are the only branch of government that can make law. And therein lies the rub between Liberals and Conservatives. The left believes that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and activist judges should be allowed to create new laws and rights. And in this case, they believe a President should be able to push an agenda by creating law without the representation of the people. This runs completely contrary to the founder's intent and is a violation of the letter of the law spelled out in the enumerated powers embodied in the Constitution. And we are, after all, a nation of laws and not of men.
     This latest foray into lawlessness by the President has been proceeded by many others. It began with the violation of contract law when the President confiscated the equity of the GM bond-holders and gave it to the unions. It continued with his refusal to obey two federal judges' rulings to end the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill. Over the last three and a half years there have been many other examples of this lawless behavior. Some are blatant, like when the President flat out stated that he and his Justice Department were not going to enforce The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Other examples were more subtle, as when the President made the recess appointment of Richard Coudray as head of the new consumer protection bureau. The problem with this appointment is that the Senate was not in recess. The President has even publicly stated that if the Congress does not act on his agenda, that he would act on his own. This statement alone would cause the founding fathers to roll over in their graves.
     The President doesn't seem to understand that leadership is different from dictating. The job of any President is to have an agenda that he feels will serve the people best without infringing on the basic freedoms protected by the Constitution. He does this by negotiating with his opponents and by compromising some of what he wants to allow his opposition to support other items that he wants. He doesn't publicly demonize those who disagree with him, nor does he blame everyone and everything for the failures of his policies. This President could learn something from one of his Democrat predecessors, Harry S. Truman, who said, "The buck stops here." Or from Dwight D. Eisenhower who had a speech in the breast pocket of his suit on D-Day accepting complete responsibility for the invasion's failure, had things gone wrong. He never had to use the speech, but this incident stands as an example of real leadership, as opposed to the It's not my fault-Things were worse than we thought-It's Bush's fault-There was a tsunami in Japan-Europe is crumbling-The Arab spring-ATMs-The Republican minority in Congress-Banks are evil-Rich people are greedy kind of leadership that we now have in the White House.

Economy Is Fine-In Obama's World

     Two separate incidents this week revealed the core of the Obama agenda and fleshed-out his vision for the country. The first was the revelation, and incontrovertible evidence, that Barrack Obama was a member of the New Party in the mid-1990s. The party was a radical Socialist organization whose goal was to convert the U.S. into a European Socialist-style of government. The Obama campaign in 2008 vehemently denied that Mr. Obama was a member of this organization because they knew it would all but ruin his chances to be elected president. But now Howard Kurtz from National Review Online has uncovered minutes from a meeting of the New Party from January 11, 1996. In these minutes is recorded the matriculation of Barrack Obama as well as his request to run as a New Party candidate. There is also a picture from the party's literature of the President posing with New Party members when he was a state senator. The record also shows that he paid dues to join the organization.
     In a separate but related incident during the President's press conference this week he revealed that he still believes in the mission of the New Party. He stated that the private sector economy is doing fine. This was not a mis-statement or a gaff. To the President's way of thinking, and that of the New Party, the economy is doing fine. Chronically high unemployment, now 40 months over 8 percent (the most since The Great Depression), growth in GDP below 2 percent (which is far below the post-WWII average of 3.2 percent) and twice as many people on food stamps as when Mr. Obama took office, all portends an economy that is doing fine according to the President.
     I recall a press conference shortly after the President was inaugurated, in which he said his goal was to even out the economy so there would be no boons or busts. I almost fell off my chair, because when a patient exhibits those same signs they are considered dead. Creating an economy which manufactures government dependants aligns with the New Party's objectives as well as those of our current president. I don't believe the President wants an economy which encourages independence and entrepreneurship, otherwise he would have implemented policies which would have encouraged it. Even hard-core Democrat leaders in cities and states will sometimes implement free-market, business-friendly policies in order to revive a failing economy. It's not rocket science,  you can't make life better for the employee class by making it harder on the employer class. Every one of the over 10,000 new Federal regulations passed by the Obama administration costs business money which means fewer jobs. The draconian regulatory environment along with uncertainty about taxes causes business to not hire or invest.
     When one looks at the policies and rhetoric of the last three and a half years coming from the Obama administration, it would take a herculean amount of denial to call President Obama a democrat instead of a New Partier.

Be Careful What You Wish For Mr. President

     I was not a fan of Mitt Romney during the Republican primary season, partially because it was obvious that the Obama campaign wanted to run against Romney. They created and nurtured the Occupy movement for that expressed purpose. All the anti-Wall Street and class-warfare rhetoric was specifically designed to battle Mitt Romney.
     But I must say that in the last couple of weeks I have been pleasantly surprised by Mitt Romney's performance. He and his wife Ann, in large part, neutralized the administration's attempt to convince people that the Republicans were waging a war on women. He masterfully responded to the Obama campaign's mis-characterizations of his time at Bain Capital. His response was so effective that even Democrats such as Duval Patrick, Ed Rendell, Corey Booker and former president Bill Clinton joined the defense of Bain specifically and private equity in general. When the left demanded that Mitt Romney denounce Donald Trump because of his views on the President's birth certificate, he stood his ground while saying he disagreed with The Donald's birth certificate view. This incident would have had John McCain running to the woodshed for some serious self-flogging, even before it was demanded by the left-wing media.
     The Romney campaign has been very effective staying on message while rapidly responding to attacks from the Obama campaign and their minions in the mainstream media. Mitt Romney's secret trip to the shuttered headquarters of Solyndra was brilliant. Solyndra is the solar panel company run by a major Obama donor which received 500 million dollars in taxpayer money then went bankrupt. Governor Romney made an effective speech at the former solar panel maker, drawing a distinction between the 80% success rate he had at Bain Capital, using private money, and the President's 0% success rate in the "Green Energy" industry, using taxpayer money. For those who don't know, Solyndra is only one of over a dozen "Green Energy" companies that have received taxpayer money and subsequently have gone bankrupt. In fact 70% of the loans made by the Department of Energy for "Green Energy" projects, have been to major Obama donors or campaign bundlers.
     Whether or not Mitt Romney is at heart a true Conservative may yet to be proved. One thing for sure is that he doesn't intend to run a campaign that apologizes and shrinks from the fight like the wilting flower campaign of John McCain. Yes, the Obama campaign hoped and wished for Mitt Romney to be the Republican candidate, because they thought they had an effective strategy for defeating him. But that desire by the Obama campaign is illustrative of the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for." And they may yet regret their wish made upon the falling star that has become their campaign.

The Great Facebook IPO Drama

     Unless you have been living on a secluded mountaintop or at the bottom of the ocean the last week, you've probably heard something about the long-awaited Facebook initial public offering. The stock opened at $38 on last Friday, and after a week of trading it had dropped below $32. The first day it traded there were some glitches that were the responsibility of the NASDAQ. These glitches delayed some orders for the stock from being filled in a timely fashion. The other complaint from investors was the addition of shares in the last week before the IPO and an increase in the IPO price. While this is not totally unheard of, it was slightly unusual. The investors also charge that Morgan Stanley, who was the chief underwriter for the IPO, told certain clients that their analyst had downgraded the value of the stock before the IPO.
     When you add all these things to the hype that was created around the IPO by the media, you had a recipe for disaster. The hype got so bad that CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and Bob Pisani enagaged in the most irresponsible behavior I have ever seen by so-called finanacial reporters; they were making guesses on where the stock would close after its first day of trading. Their guesses were as high as $100 a share, they were giddy with excitement. Of course after the stock collapsed, these two financial geniuses were assigning blame to everyone but themselves, as if they had no part in hyping the value of the stock.
     Now that there is blood in water surrounding Facebook, disgruntled investors have lawyered up in order to blame someone, anyone, for their bad investment. I follow the market everyday and handle (sometimes mis-handle) my own investments. In the weeks before the IPO I found plenty of articles detailing the over-valuation of the company. The very week of the IPO, GM said it was pulling its ads from Facebook because they said they weren't working. The problem with Facebook is that it has to find a way to monetize its 900 million users. This is done through advertisers, which if GM is to be believed, is not the main focus of Facebook, it is their users. This user-centric business model works for companies like Apple and Microsoft where the bulk of the revenue is generated directly from the users, but not for Facebook, whose revenue is generated from advertisers.
     All of this information was available to me as well as anyone else who wished to conduct due diligence before investing instead of buying into the hype. I just wonder if these whiny investors would be demanding that half their money be returned had the stock doubled the first day of the IPO. These investors want the benefits of stock gains but want to be protected by the courts or government regulators from their bad investment decisions. The market works best when individuals and firms are allowed to reap the rewards or suffer the losses of their risky decisions without blame being assigned to someone else.
  

The Great Distraction

     When President Obama announced his "evolved" view of gay marriage, my first reaction was, "Who cares?" Of course there were several reasons he made this choice, not least of which was the fact that donations to his campaign  from the gay community were sorely lacking because of his previous position that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The larger reason, I believe, for the reversal of the President's position was to distract the nation's attention from the obvious failure of his policies.
     For the record I am not in favor of gay marriage, but do support civil unions. This doesn't make me a homophobe or simpleton. Marriage has been, for millennium, the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating and raising children for the benefit of society. The fact that a small sliver of the population wants to impose a new definition on the rest of society for the expressed purpose of destroying the traditional institution, to me, is wrong. Once the definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex couples, then what's to say that polygamy and intra-familial marriage, such as a father marrying his daughter, shouldn't also be accepted. It's a slippery slope that can only be destructive to society.
     The larger issue in this fall's election is the struggle between two very different visions for the country. The Obama administration has made their view of a dependant society crystal clear, most recently with their sad and depressing slide show about a fictional woman named Julia. In the slide presentation, Julia's life consists only of her relationship with Obama's big government from age 3 thru 67. The natural state of humans is to be independent, and it is only through this independence that happiness is attained for the individual and innovation is created for the benefit of society. But President Obama, and those who share his big government ideology, have demonized success and wealth. When a society criminalizes individual wealth it ensures collective poverty. President Obama knows that the more poverty that exists the more dependence on government grows. But don't take my word for it, look at every Liberal policy and ask yourself whether or not it encourages individualism or government dependence. President Obama and his ilk look at individualism as an enemy to their political ambitions to consolidate power.
     Thomas Jefferson said, "No society can remain both ignorant and free." This statement has never been so true as it is in this upcoming election. If the majority of the population allows themselves to be distracted from the real choice, between liberty and tyranny, then we shall surely reap the harvest of the latter whose seeds have been sown in the last three and a half years.