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:

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.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Lets see...

Federal spending has increased 9% just this year - after a record of 16% in 2009. 

We are throwing away money that we don't have to dead people and criminals.  And lets not forget the chinese 'sex workers', co-eds and turtles.

Meanwhile, the dollar is sliding into irrelevance.

What's a desperate Fed to do?  Inflation!

The Pelosi-led Congress cut and ran a week early without passing a budget  or even taking a vote on the Bush tax cuts. 

A record breaking 41 million people are now on food stamps.  Ironically, some Obama supporters will have to stop drinking the kool-aid, at least if they live in NYC.

The United States has ceded sovereignty over a large piece of Arizona, Pakistan is taking billions of our taxpayer dollars with one hand and stabbing us in the back with the other, and Iran is eagerly exploring the trafficking possibilities in Afghanistan. 

The woman leading Congress thinks that food stamps and unemployment checks are the "biggest bang" for our stimulus buck. 

A congressman running for reelection claims there is no national debt.  

Is it any wonder republicans are leading in the polls?

FAREWELL REALITY, SHE BARELY KNEW YE

As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is the keeper of the national wallet.  She has also been the driving force behind every major spending bill that has come to the floor since 2007.  She is responsible for passing the budget and even created legislation that would, as she and others in the administration insist on alleging, "save or create" jobs. 

Today, she came out with a statement that not only brings up questions about her competence, but her sanity as well (perhaps a botox-induced brain injury?).  When talking to reporters today about extending unemployment benefits yet again in a "jobs" bill she has been trying to put over for the past month, her spin went spiraling out of control:

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

What she is trying to say is that the unemployment benefits put money in people's pockets, which they then spend.  That spending is apparently what causes job creation.  If that were so, some of those unemployed people would be getting those new jobs, right?  But with the jobless numbers bad yet again, it sure doesn't seem like her half-baked scheme is working. 

Someone should clue Ms. Pelosi in that the spending people do when they are on unemployment is on the bare necessities - things there are already jobs for.  It is when you spend over your normal budget on 'splurge items' that potential jobs might be made.  Considering unemployment benefits only pay a fraction of what people made at the jobs they lost, there is no additional spending - every last penny is spent on necessities. 

In fact, one might argue that high unemployment causes even more job losses, because the unemployed people are not only not splurging anymore, they are also tightening their belts - cutting out expenditures like, say, pest control or dining out entirely, and reducing costs by dropping things like premium cable packages or cell phone service for more basic plans.  This reduction in spending affects the bottom line of various businesses, which then effects their job creating abilities.  It's economics 101, Madame Speaker. 

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi should be put on unemployment this year so that she can understand the concept more fully....

Above and beyond that, the best she can come up with for job creation is unemployment benefits?   Hundreds of billions of dollars down the rabbit hole at this woman's insistence, and this is what we get for it?

How is this woman not being laughed out of Congress - or ridden out of town on a rail?

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?