A SUPREME MESS

The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations, lobbyists and unions could freely donate to political campaign advertising.  You would think that the democrats would be thrilled at the prospect, because this frees up their beloved unions to more fully support their campaigns.  And out in the open, for a change.  Although daylight might be the last thing the union heads want, bloodsuckers that they are.

Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it.  Good luck with that.  President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech.  Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.

Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week.  He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):

The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”

This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out.  It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.

The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms.  Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization.  A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances. 

The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign.  The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release.  The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns. 

I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this.  It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....

A 'HEALTHY' DOSE OF DENIAL

In an interview with Katie Couric, President Obama defended his hopey-changey message.  "Democrats wrote to me," Katie began with an apologetic smile, "saying you campaigned on a slogan of change you can believe in, but their lives and the ways of Washington, they wrote, haven't changed at all."

President Obama then launches into a denial-filled explaination of how transparent his administration is.  He mentions the fact that his visitor logs for the White House are available to the public - something unheard of with other administrations (and you know who he means!).  Of course he neglects to mention that those same logs were kept locked up (even after two federal rulings that the informtion was public), until November of '09 and even then, the list wasn't quite complete, it just went back to Sept. '09.  The new era of transparency leaves much to be desired, in my opinion.

But it gets better.  "We are eliminating lobbyists from boards and commissions," Obama insists.  And what is happening to those lobbyists who are suddenly jobless in DC?  Why, they miraculously get waivers to work in the White House

He finishes up with "There's more transparency on something like the Recovery Act and how taxpayer dollars are being spent than there/s ever been on a project of this size and scale." (has there ever been a project of this size and scale?)  Sure, as long as you don't mind phantom zip codes and congressional districts that don't exist.  And why, exactly, does the website say that about 650,000 jobs have been 'saved or created', but the administration keeps citing 1.5 - 2.4 million?  Easy - they have now changed the rules so that if a company receives stimulus funds, any job within that company now counts as 'saved or created'.  Quite a racket, no?

Obama, Pelosi et al have a little problem.  They truly believe perception is reality, and that if they simply say something often enough, with enough conviction, it will be so.  For the rest of us living in the real world (which luckily has internet access and youtube - something the administration, as tech-savvy has it has been touted as being, seems to have forgotten about), we can hear the spin and find out what's really going on.  Apparently, for about 60% of Americans, their BS detectors are set to ultra sensitive, and claptrap like he was peddling to Couric just doesn't sell anymore.

Now Obama is calling for a health care summit, this time including Republicans and C-SPAN cameras.  I guess bipartisanship and transparency are only necessary if you can't manage to pass it strictly on party lines and behind closed doors.  Can you say 'political act of desperation'?  I know that he is 'pivoting' to jobs, but why can't he just drop the whole health care thing completely for a while?  Get the economy running again and then take up health care over the summer or fall (or, more realistically, next year).  Unfortunately, the administration has managed to sell to their progressive base that economic recovery just won't happen until the health care system has been reformed. 

One thing this administration has gotten really, really good at is painting themselves into corners.

What really strikes me, though, is the petulant tone of the democrats - particularly Obama.  Well, except for Pelosi, who apparently has decided that tone-deaf defiance is the way to go.  Hey Queen Nan - when you said you would "Go through the gate.  If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence.  If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in.  If that doesn't work we'll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people", who do you think is making all of those obstructions?  That would be the American people, Nan.  You know, your bosses? 

The woman is the poster child for power drunk career political hacks. 

She is the snarling, snapping, rabid pitbull to Obama's shivering chihuahua, barking furiously to cover his uncertainty and incompetence as he hides behind her.  If the republicans can manage to take back the House, she will be neutralized, and that is more than half the battle.    The spin for this administration has become so lame and transparently, patently false that it is hard to believe anyone is falling for it anymore.  Well, except for their hard-core base, which only comprises about 20% of the voting pool, thankfully.  The rest of us respond to the desperate spin with a hearty chuckle these days, as we mark off one more day on the calendar.

The administration will be learning a hard lesson that perception is not reality, come November.  Until then, let them spin away. 

THE STATE OF OBAMA

Was it just me or was that an incredibly boring speech last night from the Great Orator?  It just seemed like a rehash of the past bazillion speeches he has given.  Blah, blah, blah, blame Bush....blah, blah, blah, party of no...blah, blah, blah, attack, complain, deceive.  No wonder his democrat supporters wanted to get drunk.

At least he expanded his rhetorical attacks to include the Supreme Court, so that's a refreshing change - I'm sure congressional Republicans and Wall Street bankers are happy for the break.

The only thing that kept the speech from being a total snoozefest was the remarkable amount of, shall we say...inconsistencies.  The AP does a fact check analysis of the speech and finds it wanting.  Here are some highlights:

• Spending Freeze - It's unrealistic, probably won't pass, and doesn't rescind the 12% average increases democrats instituted last year with the stimmulus bill.  Pelosi, tone-deaf idiot that she is, called today for the freeze to include defense spending as well.  For the details on what a waste a freeze would be, check this out.
• Bipartisan Fiscal Commission - A lame attempt to shield democrats from their profligate ways by forcing republicans to help make unpopular spending cuts and tax increases.  This is also remarkably redundant, because one of the jobs of Congress is to be fiscally responsible and monitor their own spending.
• Lobbyists - Is he kidding us with this?  Does he really think we don't know there are at least 12 lobbyists currently holding top positions in his administration?
• Jobs - Obama trotted out the number "two million" when he spoke about jobs 'saved or created'.  This number is a joke.  Back in December, the number on their website was about 650,000, but many of those were highly questionable.  It's amazing that in one month they managed to add an additional 1.35 million jobs, even though the unemployment figures took another 'unexpected' dip.  I guess that comes from their new calculation method - if a company takes stimulus dollars, every job in the company is now considered saved or created.  Quite a racket.
• Transparency - I'm surprised the man doesn't clang when he walks - he must have a huge brass pair to tout transparency after the past year.  FOIA requests are ignored by the White House, and we all know about his broken promise of CSPAN cameras capturing the health care debate.  Backroom deals and dead-of-night passage of legislation has become the norm for this administration.  Not only are bills not posted for 5 days for the public to read before voting, but now they aren't even released to members of Congress to read - vapor bills have become the norm.  They are actually voting before they write the bills now.

That isn't the complete list, but they are the most egregious ones.  On top of flat out lies, he also omitted quite a bit.  In a State of the Union speech, especially in our post 9/11 world, and even more especially because of the failed Christmas Day attempt, national security should be a main talking point.  It was barely given a paragraph, and even then it was a slam on George Bush:

"And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed - far more than in 2008."

The insinuation, of course, is that he is tougher on terror than Bush was.  First, it is impossible to verify, as we do not release body counts.  Second, it's hard to project that image when he insists on treating terrorists who are actively trying to kill American civilians as common criminals and has restricted our military's ability to combat our enemies by forcing them to follow the Army field manual - effectively giving our civilian police forces more options and tactics than our military.

He basically stated that, Massachusetts election or not, he was sticking with his agenda.  He has heard the people and found them to be wrong.  He knows best.  Health care is still a priority and he is still determined to spend us into collapse prosperity.  He is not misguided in his plans, he is determined.  He is a fully committed socialist who is refusing to bend to the will of the people.  His tactic is to attack any and all resistance and force his will on the People. 

When, exactly, do we cross the threshold from tone-deaf to tyrannical?