THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR

Today's the big day!  If the polls are right, this could be a real nail-biter.  But there's a chance that those polls aren't right.  Ace of Spades has a great rundown on why he doesn't have faith in the polls.  I tend to agree. 

As Ace points out, the most glaring problem with many of the battleground polls is that they assume the electorate will turn out in droves for democrats.  Not just keeping on par with the historic turnout of 2008, but often surpassing it - sometimes by half.  That just seems wrong, coming on the heels of the historic loss of the House in 2010 and the Wisconsin recall elections, if nothing else.  Add in the rather consistent fifty-two-ish percent of the electorate that disapproves of issues such as healthcare, the economy, the deficit, etc., and it just doesn't seem like the President has much wind at his back.

But there is another dynamic that has been ignored by the press - the intimidation factor.  For the past four-plus years, since Obama was still a senator running for president, those who don't support him or his policies have been called racist, sexist, and homophobic.   They have been hectored, lectured, patronized and treated like simpletons.  When polled, do these people tell the truth, or do they tell a little fib to keep the heat off?

A friend of mine called me the other day and told me that an Obama campaigner had just knocked on her door.  She was looking for the former resident, but upon learning that she no longer lived there asked my friend if she were registered to vote.  She hesitated a moment, then answered that yes, she was, and she had already voted, hoping that would be the end of the conversation but bracing herself anyway:

"Who did you vote for?"

Again she paused, weighing her options.  On the one hand, she could say it was none of the Obama supporter's business, but didn't want to come off combative and rude.  What came blurting out of her mouth instead was:

"Why, Obama, of course!"

The thing is, that's not how she really voted.  It just so happens that we went over our ballots together, researching and discussing the candidates and amendments, weighing the pros and cons.  When she came home from her three-hour odyssey at the polling place (I voted by absentee ballot), she proudly recounted every moment of her experience, including her satisfaction at filling in the circle for Mitt Romney.  For a little background, she had been flirting with a few of the libertarian candidates almost up until the moment she went to the voting booth.  Ultimately, she decided that this election was too important to throw away her vote on a third party candidate. 

She had a tough slog this election cycle.  Not normally political, she has spent the past twenty years in Los Angeles, working in the entertainment industry.  Her knee-jerk reaction to most things tended to be liberal.  But once out of the bubble, she embraced libertarianism, leaning liberal socially and conservative economically.  She spent a lot of time researching and bouncing from one libertarian candidate to another to Romney and back again.  It was a tough decision for her, but ultimately, she was impressed by Romney's record and felt he was the most qualified person for the job, so she did what she felt was best for the country.

And yet, when confronted by an Obama campaign worker, she lied.  Even after all of the thought and consideration, even though she has excellent, intelligent arguments for her vote, she lied.  Why?

"Because I didn't want a lecture."

I don't believe she's alone in her thinking, either.  There are a lot of independents and libertarians like her who have been lumped in with republicans when it comes to liberal hate.  Their moderateness is no shield against the same accusations of racism, etc. that conservatives have had to endure for the past few years.  So they have decided, as many conservatives have, that the best thing to do is keep silent unless challenged.  At which point a fib is often the only other option to a long, potentially contentious debate and/or ad hominem attacks.  And so fib they do. 

It makes me wonder.  That OfA worker went back to her campaign office and reported my friend as a vote for Obama, when in reality she was a vote for Romney.  How many others have done this?  If their internal numbers use this information, and my friend is not alone in her reticence, their internals could potentially be as wrong as the polls showing President Obama with a D+11 edge.

It feels like enthusiasm is on Romney's side (looks like it too), as are independents.  But they are tired of the partisanship and name-calling and ultimately just want to be left alone to live their lives again.  The big question is, how many of them are out there?

The willful blindness of the media - including much of their polling - has helped create a reality in which President Obama, he of credit downgrades, deficit and debt upgrades, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the most unpopular, hyper-partisan social engineering law in modern memory - Obamacare - is competitive against a man who's record on turning around failed companies is, according to Bill Clinton, "stellar" and understands the engine of the economy in a way the current administration never will.  The question is, will that reality stand?  Or will the people who have been pretending to buy it step up and let their voice be heard from the anonymous confines of the voting booth?

Here's hoping George Will, Michael Barone and others are right and that this ends up being a big, red wave that sweeps Mitt Romney into the White House.  A close election will invariably create more bones of contention at a time when there is already a very real feeling in the country that we have had enough.  A decisive Romney victory (there is hardly any talk anymore of a decisive Obama victory, just slim O, slim R or decisive R) would send home the lawyers and even the most partisan, passionate progressive would have to concede the race. 

Hopefully we will have a decision by tomorrow morning.  In the meantime, try to stay calm.

SIX TRILLION DOLLAR MAN

Catchy and devastating.  What's not to love?!

A WHOLE NEW GAME

Mitt Romney's pick for VP has energized the conservative movement.  Paul Ryan not only brings the tea party firmly onto the ticket (uh-oh, the NYTimes figured it out!), he also brings a level of leadership and (desperately needed) mathematical competency that has been sorely lacking over the past few years.  This is a whole new game now.  The cheap thuggery of the Obama campaign isn't going to stand up well in comparison with the cheerful warrior-wonk Romney has recruited to carry his standard and rally the troops.

The whole thing rather has the feel of a schoolyard bully scene at the end of a movie.  The bullies have surrounded the prissy little rich kid and are taunting and maybe even pushing him around a little as the rest of the schoolchildren look away and pretend it isn't really happening.  But then, out of nowhere, in comes this (dreamy?) blue-eyed former prom king, who steps out in front of the bullies' victim and stands his ground with a polite smile on his boyish face, a steel-trap mind and rock-hard abs hidden under his buttoned-up button down shirt.  Suddenly, the tenor of the moment changes, the prissy boy grows a spine, the bully boys back up a step and try to laugh off this new threat while the kids on the playground gather in and start chanting "Fight! Fight! Fight" in eager anticipation of the butt-whooping to come. 

THE PLAN IS WORKING

President Obama recently stated that:

"We tried our plan - and it worked"

Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it.  But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November.  Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid.  I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!)  I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths.  I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me.  But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit.  Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time.  One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos". 

This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse.  What would they replace the capitalist system with?  Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course.  A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".

Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war.  We have neither on our shores,  and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region.  In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about?  By overwhelming our system in other ways.

Why is it important to talk about this theory now?  Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:

CONTEMPT AND PRIVILEGE

In the latest twist on the eighteen-month-long endeavor to discover what exactly happened in regards to Operation Fast and Furious, the House Oversight Committee voted to cite Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.   It passed the committee 23-17 - on party lines - and is now headed to the floor of the House for a vote that is expected to take place some time next week (where is is expected to pass - again on a party line vote).  For those not familiar with OF&F, go here and here for background.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT: PROPAGANDA EDITION

Dana Milbank isn't someone I agree with often, but his article in the Washington Post today was a real eye opener for me.  Mr. Milbank is (somewhat surprisingly) not very supportive of President Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule", which is supposed to reach the Senate floor for a vote next week.  It's not expected to pass.

In fact, the president himself called the whole thing a "gimmick".  Isn't it great that the Senate is spending its valuable time on this purely political attempt to re-elect one man instead of doing its constitutional duty and passing the first budget in more than three years?   Good to know they have their priorities in line.

ON CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS AND POND SCUM

At a recent fundraiser, President Obama called his republican competitors "flat earthers" in regards to his "all of the above" energy policy (via USA Today):

"If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail," he said, "they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society -- they would not have believed that the world was round."

Yeah, yeah, we get it, conservatives are anti-science.  Well, except when they're not, of course.

PROJECTION AND REVERSISM Updated

In yet another glaringly obvious case of projection, our esteemed President said a mouthful while attacking the republican agenda at yet another fundraiser last night (via the Weekly Standard):

"The very core of what this country stands for is on the line"

Now, of course he was referring to the eeeeevil republican candidates destroying America as we know it.  In reality, what he is trying to do is about as far from the core of what this country stands for as possible.  Isn't that, in fact, what his claims to "fundamentally change" America were all about?  Ostensibly, his point was that republicans won't make you your neighbor's keeper, but when was that ever the core of what this country stands for?  It doesn't really jibe with our signature rugged individualism, but then, we all know how he feels about that little foible.

STUCK IN THE PAST - Updated

It seems President Obama is now attempting to channel Theodore Roosevelt.  Sure, why not?  It's amazing how many former presidents he (or the ever-fawning media) has tried to model himself after - it started with the comparisons to FDR and JFK, but continued with quite laughable attempts to connect him to Reagan and even Harry Truman.  Now, I have to say, there is a bit of a similarity on that last one, but not the bogus "Do Nothing Congress" angle he's been working for all he's worth.  No, the real similarity is that both are responsible for dropping huge bombs that crippled nations - Japan, in Truman's case, and the American economy via Porkulus, over regulation and Obamacare in Obama's.  Unfortunately for President Obama, the rising consensus is that, performance-wise, he is a far closer match to Carter than any of the giants with whom he has attempted parity.

MY OBAMAVILLE

MY OBAMAVILLE
(sung to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville)

Nibblin' on soy cake
Man, I am so baked
All of those hippies covered with paint
Bangin' my drum kit
I bet you hate it
The smell might make you want to faint

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
All I know is it's not government's fault

I don't know the reason
Private property seizing
Nothin' to show but some lice and some fleas
But I got of easy
I'm not that sleazy
So at least I don't have STD's

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I think
It might be government's fault

Government fat cats
Gettin' their kickbacks
I'll wash yours if you wash mine
How can this not be
Laundering money
Robbin' the taxpayers blind

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I know it's crony government's fault
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
But I know it's crony government's fault

Cross Posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

AN EXERCISE IN THE MECHANICS OF CRONYISM AND THE USEFULNESS OF USEFUL IDIOTS

Crony Capitalism in five easy steps!

Step One:  Warren Buffet, after a conversation with President Obama, loaned Bank of America $5 billion, even though BofA was protesting loudly that they were sound and didn't need a bailout. 

Step Two:  Bank of America makes headlines by deciding to pass on the costs of the Frank-n-Dodd regulations to their account holders (as opponents of the law forecast last summer) in the form of a $5 per month fee for use of debit cards (not including ATM withdrawals).  Rest assured the other banks will be following suit - after BofA takes the heat for them, of course.

WHERE'S OBAMO? Updated

Call me old fashioned, but in times of national crisis I, like many Americans, take comfort from hearing words of wisdom from my president.  When the world seems to be on fire or collapsing around our ears, when tragic events unfold, we have always had the calming influence of our appointed leader to guide us through the dark times.

Until now.

THE NOOSE IS TIGHTENING FAST AND FURIOUSLY

I was going to post this as an update to my last post on Operation Fast and Furious but decided it was so important that it needed it's own post.

In testimony this week, Bill Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office stated to investigators that he had sent an email to a longtime friend in the White House that included information on Operation Fast and Furious.  Eh, no big deal, right?  A low-level exchange of information between friends that never went beyond their circle of two.

WHAT'S THE PLAN, STAN?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said (via the L.A. Times):

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

Let me repeat that last bit: "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage". Really? The Senate has not passed a budget in over 750 days - more than two years.  Isn't that a bit foolish, Sen. Reid?  Passing a budget is essential for the economic health of this country.  Not doing so would mean a repeat of the squabbling over bi-weekly continuing resolutions from earlier in the year, something we can ill afford to do again.

What Reid is willing to do is finally bring the House-passed 2012 Ryan budget proposal up for a vote, where it was voted down 57-40.  Why, all of a sudden, was he ready to bring the bill to the floor after letting it languish for more than a month?  He was striking while the political iron was hot, of course.  The NY-26 special election republican loss is being spun as a referendum against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, particularly his take on Medicare reform.  Reid's only motive is to get republicans on record as voting for the budget so it can be used against them in the wider mediscare campaign democrats are going to embark on in the coming months in a desperate effort to keep their majority.  It's all about politicking, not the well-being of the nation.

Reid also brought President Obama's original budget proposal introduced back in February to the floor for a vote shortly after the vote on the Ryan plan, where it was defeated 97-0.  In fact, the Senate voted down not two but four budget proposals that day, without offering up even the merest hint of a plan of their own.  And try as they might to paint Rep. Ryan's proposal as "radical", it still fared a heck of a lot better than Obama's.  You'll be shocked - shocked - to learn there is zero media coverage of the complete repudiation of Obama's fiscal plans for 2012 - only the failure on party lines of the extremely extreme, radically radical Ryan proposal. 

Now that Senate democrats have put the kybosh on those budget proposals, one would expect them to introduce one of their own.  That's normally how things work.  It's really the heart of the negotiating process.  Obama's own fiscal commission cautioned against exactly what is going on right now in the preamble to their report:

"Don’t shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place."

So what does Reid offer in place of the budgets he just voted down?  Nothing.  Squat.  Zippo.  Nada.  Zilch.  Well, aside from the usual demagoguing, of course.  Demagoguery is rather like jello for left-wingers - there's always room for some.  Unfortunately, it makes it seem like the welfare of this country and it's people is not at the top of the list of priorities for this administration.  The agenda must be implemented, no matter how much pain it inflicts (or how vehemently it is rejected).

It's tempting to make the case for incompetence as an excuse for this bizarre budgetary inaction in the face of a potential double-dip recession.  The thing is, who's going to buy that almost an entire administration is incompetent?  It then begs the question: Does incompetency on such a grand scale deserve to be in power?

President Obama's own fiscal commission co-chair, Erskine Bowles, has called the coming fiscal collapse:

“the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

And yet, even now, this administration refuses to make any serious proposals, or even tap the brakes on the runaway spending.  Obama's 2012 budget proposal, introduced well after the fiscal commission gave it's recommendations to bring down spending and fast, actually increased spending by $200 billion over the most recent budget democrats passed - for FY 2010.  Yup, his own commission strongly recommended immediate, deep spending cuts - including entitlement spending - and Obama's response was to increase spending in his budget proposal.  Incompetence or willful negligence?

Steny Hoyer is on the record saying we are not broke and Harry Reid is lamenting the possible loss of funding for such vital necessities as cowboy poetry at the hands of those mean-spirited old republican meanie-heads.  President Obama is jetting around the globe shaking hands, kissing babies and ignoring such petty details as debt ceilings and budgets in favor of promising aid we can't afford.  In fact - and this is a longstanding issue that predates Obama but which has only increased under his administration - it turns out that there is quite a circle jerk going on with foreign aid.  We give financial aid to wealthy nations and then ask to borrow back ten times as much.  Talk about insanity!  Wall Street is faltering (if a 279 point one-day drop  and the longest slump since 2004 can be called something as mild as 'faltering'), house prices continue to tumble, inflation has caused Memorial Day celebrations to cost an estimated 29% more this year than last, gas is still over $3.60 per gallon, unemployment is back up to 9.1%, manufacturing is down, consumer confidence is dropping and experts are starting to talk about a double-dip recession again - even liberal ones. 

Demagoguing the issue will only be tolerated for so long; certainly not all the way up to the election .  Even some liberal talking heads are starting to remark on the lack of a fiscal plan from the left.  It's time for Harry Reid and President Obama to get serious and put up a plan for getting us out of this mess instead of just attacking others.  What sounds like great politicking inside the beltway looks like a complete disregard for the economy and the people suffering under it outside the beltway.

It's time for a democratic plan that can be compared to the republican's offerings.  Negotiation requires that both parties bring something to the table.  What is going on now is nothing more than fiddling while Rome burns.  It is said that Nero allowed Rome to burn so that he could rebuild it to his specifications.  Sound familiar?

SWEET VICTORY!!! Updated

Osama bin Laden is dead.  God bless America and our fantastic fighting men and women!  According to reports, a Navy SEAL team got him (GO NAVY!!), one of his sons, and Osama's youngest wife who, in the tradition of cowardly terrorists everywhere, was used as a human shield.   

Interestingly, bin Laden was found at a massive fortress deep in Pakistan.  Apparently, he was in a million dollar complex complete with 18 foot tall, barbed-wire topped walls in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  If the Pakistani government didn't know he was there, I'll eat my hat, since Abbottabad is an affluent suburb about 35 miles outside of Pakistan's capitol of Islamabad.  On top of that, the compound was a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military training center.  Go figure.  Some of the questions we will be demanding answers to in the coming days will certainly include a few on who in the Pakistani government knew what and when. 

There were parties going on last night in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at the campuses of both West Point and Annapolis.  One would imagine the Annapolis celebration will be going on for quite a while - the Navy certainly has a prize scalp to bolster morale and they will surely be revelling in it.

Reports are still conflicting, but what seems to be coming clear is that this victory is going to bring up some hard truths that some on the left might not like.  Most importantly, much of the intelligence that got us this victory started out, four years ago, as information received from Gitmo detainees at the hands of interrogators.  It will be interesting to see how that narrative develops in the coming weeks.  Hopefully those practices will be seen as the necessary evil that they are now that they have been instrumental in bringing Public Enemy #1 to justice. 

This victory has many fathers - most notably the CIA and SEAL Team Six, who developed the intel and kept their eyes on the prize.  The lion's share of credit goes to them, along with the thanks of a grateful nation.  Credit should also be given to both the Obama administration for making the call to go into Pakistan (quite a risky call, to be sure - kudos, Mr. President) and the Bush administration for extracting the initial information four years ago that put us on the path to Abbottabad in the first place.

The joyous crowds filling the streets of NYC and Washington DC last night were just the beginning.  As people wake up to the news today, there are sure to be many more celebrations across the country.  This event has come at a time when we desperately needed unity.  The divisiveness of the political scene and the economic fears gripping the nation will be put aside, at least for today, so that we can celebrate this major victory and remember that we're all in it together.  This surge of pride in America is a welcome thing, and something that hopefully will not fade away any time soon.

In five months, we will be observing the 10th anniversary of September 11th.  While the observances will be solemn, they will have a new undercurrent this year.  We the people have gotten a certain measure of closure with the death of bin Laden.  Will it take away the pain inflicted on 9/11?  No, but it sure does go far towards banishing that helpless feeling many Americans have felt for the past nine years.  Perhaps now the real healing can begin.

This isn't the end of this conflict by any means, but this is a watershed moment for sure.  There will be much to discuss in the coming weeks as more information comes out.  There will surely be controversy over bin Laden's burial at sea - a necessary thing, in my opinion, which will keep his tomb from becoming a pilgrimage site for future jihadis - and the role Pakistani officials may have played in keeping his whereabouts secret, but for now, let's just savor the flavor of sweet, sweet victory.  Democrats, independents and republicans will put aside their differences today and celebrate this great triumph against an evil man.

God bless America!

UPDATE:  HotAir has a great roundup of last night's celebrations.

UPDATE II:  Initial reports had a police station near the OBL compound; turns out it is the Pakistani version of West Point instead.  I've changed it in the post.

UPDATE III:  Questions already arising from the burial at sea, as expected.  Imams are claiming it wasn't a sufficient burial, others are saying the body should have been brought back here.  Why?  To display it like a trophy - perhaps mount his head on a spike atop the ever-growing Freedom Tower?  Burial at sea ensures no shrine to the martyr's tomb.  As it is, one will most likely crop up in Abbottabad.  They should release the pictures, though, for sure - gore and all.  The wound can be blurred to make it more palatable.    DNA tests might prove there's a 99.9% chance it's him, but I, for one, want to see him with my own eyes.  And from the spontaneous outbursts of joyful patriotism breaking out all over the country, I don't think I'm alone.

THE RIPLEY COMMISSION

Gas prices here in Central Florida have jumped up to nearly $4 per gallon in recent weeks.  In our nation's capital, prices are just shy of $5 per gallon - the highest in the nation.  At least the people who got us to this point are the ones feeling the pinch first.  Small comfort, I know - especially since many Capitol Hill denizens probably have their gas tabs picked up by the public.  The increase in prices has been sharp and is not likely to reverse anytime soon.  Our intrepid president, in light of his people's suffering, has called for a task force to research why gas prices have spiked so much and root out fraud in the marketplace.  Now, I'm no energy wonk, but I think I can shed some light on the subject, since our Demagoguer-in-Chief seems so baffled.  We'll call it the Ripley Commission on Oil Demagoguery.

First up are the eeeevil speculators.  Yes, these nameless, faceless demons of the free market really do have a stake in the rising price of gas, but it's not as large as the administration is trying to make out.  Their decisions, contrary to Obama's vague accusations of rampant, willful fraud and abuse, are based in part on actions this administration is taking as well as events elsewhere in the world.  In a nutshell, they are forecasting that the demand for and price of oil will increase in the near future.  They base these forecasts on conditions in oil producing areas such as wars or unrest, world oil supply and levels of resource development among other factors.  The biggest trouble with speculators is that they are only required to put down less than ten percent of the value of the contract, which keeps their risk at an unacceptably low level which in turn encourages them to take more risks.  That needs to change, without doubt.  Implimenting regulations that would increase the down payment to fifty percent would cut down on the number of speculators, resulting in a decrease in demand for oil futures with the eventual result being a more stable market.

But speculators aren't the only problem - if they were, gas prices would not have gone down at all after the big jump the press was so hysterical about in the summer of 2008.  Instead, it dropped from over $4 per gallon to $1.85 the day President Obama was sworn into office.  Did the eeevil Big Oil CEO's suddenly develop a heart upon Obama's inauguration?  No, more likely the speculators figured the anti-war candidate would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, settling the region and thus oil prices.  Gee, that didn't pan out as expected, did it?

Another factor in the increase is the Saudi's decision to decrease supply by 800,000 barrels, citing an oversupplied market.  While it is true that demand has dropped recently due to high prices, a decrease in supply is only going to jack the prices up even higher.  Members of OPEC are quite aware of this and are manipulating the price for two reasons - increased revenue and a chance to put the screws to Americans.  Everybody loves a twofer!

A real driver in the price spike is the unrest in the Middle East.  The problem isn't just the war non-war "kinetic military action" in Libya, although that is a major issue - for Europe.  The ongoing situation in Egypt - the controllers of the Suez Canal - is also cause for concern and contributes to the rise in oil prices.  The canal is the bottleneck through which much of the Middle Eastern oil flows.  Disruptions and unrest around the canal threaten that flow, thus increasing prices.

It's wrong to think that foreign influences are the only reason prices are skyrocketing, no matter how much the administration points the finger elsewhere.  Our domestic policy over the past year has contributed greatly, and underestimating that impact is akin to willful blindness.  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration handcuffed domestic production.  His damaging (and unlawful) drilling moratorium has done almost as much to increase prices as the unrest in the Middle East.  If he were to start allowing drilling again in the Gulf - and better yet, open up ANWR - prices would, if not drop, at least stablize, due to speculators seeing a new source of oil being tapped.  And yes, even though it might take a few years to access the oil (although not nearly as long as democrats would have you believe, especially considering how many rigs are sitting idle in the Gulf as we speak), the fact that it is actively being sought would be enough for the speculators to speculate a drop in price in the future.

The fact is, Obama is allowing gas prices to skyrocket to force us into "green" alternatives.  He's admitted before that he is willing to allow prices to "necessarily skyrocket" to get his green agenda implimented - why change now?  The problem with this strategy is that there are no alternatives that are ready for mass consumption.  His snarky comeback about buying a hybrid if you can't afford gas prices was tone deaf and obnoxious.  It's been proven he's not good at math, but even my eleven year old knows that if you can't afford $4 per gallon gas, you sure as hell can't afford to run out and buy a $25,000 Prius.  Not to mention the gentleman he so patronizingly made an example of has ten kids, and I'm pretty sure they won't fit into a Prius. 

When gas prices rose under President Bush, he was demonized in the press who blamed him, claiming it was cronyism at work.  Now we hear barely a peep about presidential culpability, even though the price increases are due, in large part, to Obama's hostile policies towards drilling.  Nope, no bias there!  Move along, move along....That he is creating yet another useless task force to try to figure out why prices are so high is just another transparent attempt to paint himself blameless.

It is becoming more and more obvious that his quest for "change" will continue, no matter how damaging it is to the country and her people.  It is hard to believe that a President of the United States is willfully crippling this country in order to shape it into the quasi-socialist, pseudo-European state he so deeply desires.  The complicit media, ever eager to suck up to their faux messiah, are happy to carry his water and mislead the public.

How desperate are the American people?  Well, Obama's so bad that he makes Donald Trump look like a viable candidate.  Not even Bush managed that.  Obama's redistributionist agenda has been resoundingly rejected, and the people are looking for a leader who will return us to our free market roots and drill, baby, drill.   Even if that leader is an outspoken entrepreneur who has comically bad hair and an ego the size of Manhattan. 

In conclusion, the Ripley Commission on Oil Demagoguery finds that, while events in the Middle East certainly play a part, as do speculators, the Obama Administration shoulders just as much blame.  One might even argue they should shoulder a little more because of their willingness to allow the American people to suffer when a few policy changes could relieve the pressure. The only fraud that needs rooting out is Obama from the White House.  The sad fact is, as long as he is in the White House and Ken Salazar is running the Interior Department, the American people can expect to continue paying through the nose for gas.  The silver lining, though, is that the resulting double dip recession will most likely be the catalyst for their ouster.  God willing.  In the meantime, we can safely speculate that staycations, inflation and higher prices on goods are in our future. 

THE REAL BONE OF CONTENTION

Let's face it - the real reason the DNC and Obama's OfA are freaking out over and attempting to organize and expand the Wisconsin budget protests isn't just because of the fact that if Gov. Walker has his way he will end collective bargaining.   There is a much deeper issue at stake, and it's something that isn't getting much play in the media, because it's not a sympathetic position ("It's for the kids!"™).  Walker's budget will also force unions to collect their own dues and, most importantly of all, have an annual membership vote.  That is the union buster, right there.  If Walker's plan goes through, union membership in the public sector will sink like a stone. 

This is, after all, a forced unionization state - if you work for the state of Wisconsin, you are a union member.  Period.  The dues are automatically garnished from your wages by the state; you have no choice.  The thing Walker is attempting to allow, which the unions and the DNC are desperate to stop, is employee choice over whether they want to be in the union or not.  According to this poll, there's a good chance that a healthy majority will choose "not".  Especially when those dues no longer magically disappear from their paychecks, sight unseen, and they have to cut a check themselves every month.  People tend to stop and think, to assess something more closely, when they are the ones writing the check for it - especially in a recession.

The most dangerous development in Madison is the annual membership vote. On a personal note, years ago I started working at a large corporation.  While I was going through the orientation process I was heavily pressured to join the union.  I did, as did most new hires.  But as I went through my first year, I realized that, being in a right to work state, union and non-union members had the same contracts - with the exception that non-union didn't have the pressure of a threat to strike every time the contract was up for renewal.  And I mean every time.  And so, like a large majority of my fellow employees, on my one year anniversary I dropped out of the union.  Wisconsin state employees don't have this luxury, but Walker wants to change all that.  It's not so much that he is trying to bust the unions as make the conditions possible for them to bust themselves.

Make no mistake, though - the DNC and OfA aren't coming to the rescue because this is an "assault on unions"; they are charging into the fray because it's an assault on the their campaign contributions.

The potential drop in membership in turn robs some of the DNC's biggest contributors of their forced dues, which they so generously donate to their pet politicians.  President Obama himself owes a huge debt to unions, and no doubt was counting on their support come 2012.  So the reason why the DNC and OfA have thrust themselves into a state issue is certainly no mystery.  The only thing under debate, really, is the appropriateness of their actions.

This isn't about "the little people", this isn't really even about collective bargaining.  It's about keeping forced membership, which will allow the government/union circle jerk to continue unchecked.  It's just amazing how hysterical some people become over corporate cronyism, and yet shout "power to the people" when it comes to union cronyism.  The problem is, public union cronyism is even more dangerous, because while a corporation greases palms and buys politicians to help create or prevent legislation/regulation that might enable their companies to have an edge in the marketplace (which might have the happy result of job creation/economic growth), unions grease the palms and buy the politicians with whom they negotiate their salaries and benefits.  It's like having union bosses on both sides of the table, only the "corporation" they are nailing to the wall is the American taxpayer (who is, at least according to Paul Krugman, the new mortal enemy of democracy). 

So don't be fooled by the DNC and unions (but I repeat myself) lamenting "worker's rights".  In the end, all they care about is the bottom line.  Ultimately the bottom line Walker is offering could be potentially crippling for them in the upcoming election cycle.  And that's all that really matters - the next election cycle.

Let's hope the gravy train has left the station by then.

STATE OF THE UNION - 2011 EDITION

Last night's State of the Union address was much like other SOTU's.  Bland, long on length and short on substance.  Don't get me wrong, this SOTU is not unique in it's  - they're all like that.  It's the nature of the beast.  However, this speech did stand out for a few reasons, but they were mostly distortions and half-truths creative modifications of the parameters of certain situations.

So, was I the only one who burst out laughing when President Obama said he would veto any bill with earmarks in it that comes across his desk?  Puh-leeze.  We've heard that one before, haven't we?  Not even Harry Reid is buying into it -  he actually put it into perspective quite nicely, via ABC News (emphasis mine):

“Without any question,” Reid replied. “I understand it’s great for an applause line, but it’s really not solving anything to do with the deficit. It’s only for show.”


“So you’re saying that earmarks will be back?” said Karl.

“Of course they’ll be back,” said Reid.

Every suggestion for improving the national situation involved a government based 'solution', usually in the form of spending.  Or, as President Obama prefers, "investment".  I'd like to see a poll on how many people buy the "investment" line, as opposed to those who know it is just progressive-ese for more spending.  You would think that he would have learned by now that throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.  Not even $5 trillion.

Did anyone else have a deja vu moment when he talked about an infrastructure spending bill?  Um, didn't we do that already?  That turned out well.  I seem to recall it wasn't really popular, either.  I had to stifle a laugh when he mentioned all the construction jobs created by the Porkulus bill.   Perhaps his staff are filtering the news for him.  Whatever the case may be, it was a ludicrous statement.

At least this year he admitted that America is a great country.  That's new.  Too bad he saved it for the very end, when everyone had already tuned out.  Maybe next year he'll put it at the beginning of the address, where it's usually mentioned.  He was more upbeat this year, which was nice, and not chastising members of one of the other two branches of government was certainly appreciated.   The speech was delivered well, as usual, although the breathy emphasis on certain words was a new and, after a while, annoying addition to his speaking style.  And yes, the smoked salmon joke was funny, I have to admit.  Just a thought, though - when proposing a government answer for every problem, perhaps it's better not to remind anyone how byzantine, redundant and/or ineffective government can be, no matter how funny the reference.  His tone was, for the most part, upbeat and warm (perhaps an attempt to cozy up to an electorate that has cooled towards him), but there was a serious lack of direction in the text.  Unfortunately, the only path he really mapped out for us was a one way trip to the investment-driven poorhouse.

It would have been nice if he had mentioned the disaster of epic proportions that hit our country in 2010 - the Gulf oil spill.  Not a word was mentioned about it, which is remarkable.  But, then again, it hasn't warranted mention anywhere since shortly after they capped the well.  How's the cleanup going?  Any word on where that 22 mile long plume went?  I guess one of the largest natural disasters our nation has ever seen doesn't deserve mention in the State of the Union speech.  And why should it?  After all, it's not like it's a problem anymore - he got the damn hole plugged, didn't he?  No need to remind the public of the fumbling, ham-handed, ineffective way it was handled, now is there?

All in all, this attempt at centrism and triangulation was tepid.  He and his speech writers were in uncharted territory, and it showed.  In the grand scheme of things, this isn't the worst SOTU - but it sure as heck wasn't the best, either.

Oh, and I hope "Winning the Future" isn't the new Obama 2012 campaign slogan, because someone else has already claimed it.

MEMORANDUM FOR SLAUGHTER

On October 25, 2010, President Obama signed a memorandum that will exempt four countries from 2008's Child Soldiers Prevention Act - Yemen, Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This Act was a bipartisan effort to block countries that recruit child soldiers from getting US military assistance or buying US arms. Two other countries mentioned in the law, Myanmar and Somalia, are still prohibited.


So let me get this straight - if a kid in this country makes a gun shape with her finger and pretend 'shoots', she is suspended for making a "terroristic threat" to a teacher. But if some third world hellhole forcefully 'recruits' a kid, gives him a real gun, trains him and sends him off to war, they get Uncle Sam to supply the weapons and foot the bill.

Isn't this genocide? Why are we now supporting this?

For those not aware of the genocide in Darfur, many of those fleeing the violence are seeking refuge in Chad - another of the four exempted countries. Could there possibly be a spillover of violence?

This has gotten little notice, but it should. How can Obama in good conscience exempt these countries? What in the world is he thinking? The reason given for the exemptions is 'national security', and yet there is no explanation forthcoming on how, exactly, this affects our national security. Is there some crisis he sees down the road where we will need armed children at our disposal? Or does he believe the armed youth will be the voices of reason that will overthrow the government and then create a peaceful utopia?

Darfur is already in chaos. Tacit approval of child soldiers by the US government is like throwing gasoline on a brushfire. Please remember that this isn't economic aid, aid for reugees or food and other supplies for the poor. This is a block on military aid. Places like Darfur most definitely do NOT need more weapons. What they need is a functioning, accountable government and a return to sanity. This memorandum all but ensures they will not get it.

Cross Posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots.com

CALVIN-ISM FOR THE MODERN AGE

There has been a lot of talk over the past year that what the country really needs is another Ronald Reagan.  I was still a kid when the Gipper was president, but my memories of that time, particularly when put in the persepective of the deprivations of the Carter years, was of a prosperous time where it was still a great thing to be American.  There are many people, particularly in the Tea Party, who would like to see a return to those times.  But I have another role model that we might want to keep an eye out for.  This man has been relatively overlooked by history, which is a shame. 

Particularly after the excesses of the past two years under Obama and the past four years with the purse strings controlled by Pelosi, we are in need of a modern-day Calvin Coolidge.  Yes, that's right.  Coolidge.  "Silent Cal" is a Tea Partier's dream candidate, and he would be willing to take the sometimes unpopular steps to bring us back from the brink that we are teetering on.  Much like the religious reforms of calvinism were a revolutionary movement back in the 1600's, we need our own fiscally conservative, small business Calvin-istic revolution today. 

Coolidge is really the anti-Obama.  Everything that Obama is and stands for, Coolidge is the polar opposite.  Obama has rockstar status, relying heavily on his personal charm and preaching from the pulpit style to woo the electorate.  He is professorial, arrogant and cool in demeanor.  He passes the buck and is quick to point the finger of blame, and his opinion of taxation is that it is the American people's patriotic duty to pay up, and that he and his cronies can spend our money better than we can. 

Coolidge, on the other hand, was a humble, quiet, retiring everyman who was not prone to being wordy - the closest to cool he ever came was the 'cool' in his name.  His speeches were effective, skillfully delivered, and numerous, but not very memorable.  The buck stopped with him, and instead of wasting time placing blame, he spent his time trying to fix the problem.  His opinions on taxation were as revolutionary in that era of progressivism as they would be in this age of progressivism.  He felt that it was the duty of the government to keep spending to a minimum so that the American taxpayer could see more of their money in their own pockets.  His view of government was to keep it as minimally invasive as possible, whereas Obama thinks government is the answer for everything.  How successful were his policies?  Well, the Roaring Twenties were under his watch, if that is any indication.

We are in desperate need of austerity, but more importantly, we are in desperate need of politiicans who are willing to risk broad popularity in order to do what is necessary to save this country from the fiscal disaster that is looming just over the horizon.  The days of kicking the can down the road are gone.  The time for action is now, and Silent Cal might just hold the solution, if our politicians are willing.  For those who question the wisdom of looking for another Calvin Coolidge, I will leave you with this clip, via the Cato Institute:



In closing, here is a gem of a quote from Silent Cal that our current president should really take to heart:

"The words of a President have an enormous weight," he would later write, "and ought not to be used indiscriminately."