The American People didn't drop the ball. The feckless President did and it is about time he takes responsibilty.

The NY TIMES is such a repository of self righteousness, it's amazing that the smell coming from their HQ isn't mistaken for a Pig Farm.

Exhibit A - OPED by Nicholas D. Kristof titled " Did WE Drop the ball on Unemployment?"

The NY TIMES lists the following on Mr. Kristof's Bio -

"Mr. Kristof grew up on a sheep and cherry farm near Yamhill, Oregon. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College and then studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, graduating with first class honors."

Well I am unsure what he learned at either Oxford or Harvard BUT I can tell you this -

WE (as in the American People) didn't drop the ball on unemployment, HE (as in the feckless idiot in the White House) dropped the ball. The average working man had the ball dropped on him.

While the fool that was elected in 2008 spent the better part of the last 2 1/2 years diddling around with Nancy Pelosi's vision of America, the average American has been taking it in the neck...The PRESIDENT dropped the ball. CONGRESS dropped the ball.

One of the key tennants of LEADERSHIP is when you are in charge, you take RESPONSIBILITY for what happens when you are in charge. RESPONSIBILITY is a word that has never been in the President's dictionary as he is CLUELESS about what needs to be done. That is why we are in the mess we are in. He and his minions wasted 2 1/2 years blaming everything on anyone else. Mr. Kristof is one of those media cheerleaders that propped up the President in getting elected, and he was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

Mr. Kristof, with all due respect, get a clue. WE (the American people) didn't drop the ball. The feckless & ineffective pol sitting in the White House screwed up and he needs to be adult enough to own up to it. And he DOES NOT deserve a 2nd term to further muck things up. He can go back to Harvard or Chicago and charge $100K a speech for anyone dumb enough top listen to whatever comes out of his empty head.


Op-Ed Columnist - NY TIMES
Did We Drop the Ball on Unemployment?
Nicholas D. Kristof

WHEN I’m in New York or Washington, people talk passionately about debt and political battles. But in the living rooms or on the front porches here in Yamhill, Ore., where I grew up, a different specter wakes friends up in the middle of the night.

It’s unemployment.

I’ve spent a chunk of summer vacation visiting old friends here, and I can’t help feeling that national politicians and national journalists alike have dropped the ball on jobs. Some 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed — that’s more than 16 percent of the work force — but jobs haven’t been nearly high enough on the national agenda.

When Americans are polled about the issue they care most about, the answer by a two-to-one margin is jobs. The Boston Globe found that during President Obama’s Twitter “town hall” last month, the issue that the public most wanted to ask about was, by far, jobs. Yet during the previous two weeks of White House news briefings, reporters were far more likely to ask about political warfare with Republicans.

(I’m an offender, too: I asked President Obama a question at the Twitter town hall, and it was a gotcha query about his negotiations with Republicans. I’m sorry that I missed the chance to push him on the issue that Americans care most about.)

A study by National Journal in May found something similar: newspaper articles about “unemployment” apparently fell over the last two years, while references to the “deficit” soared.

When I’m back on the family farm in Yamhill, our very closest neighbor is one of those 25 million. Terry Maggard worked on a crew detecting underground gas, electrical or cable lines, and after 15 years on the job he was earning $20 an hour. Then at the outset of the recession in late 2008 his employer fired him and the other old-timers, and hired younger workers — who earned only $9 or $10 an hour.

Terry has been knocking on doors everywhere, including at McDonald’s, but nobody wants a 56-year-old man. “The only call I got in two years was one asking if I could be a French chef,” he recalled, laughing. “I said ‘Oui.’ ”

Mais non, the chef’s job did not come through. So although Terry earns some money breeding Pomeranians, his wife is now the main income earner. She worries that her job at a community college may be in jeopardy as well, and their standard of living has plummeted.

“It’s been a 100 percent change in my lifestyle,” Terry said. “I used to grill rib-eye steaks on the barbecue. Now I grill hot dogs. And I can’t tell you the last time I went out for a meal.”

My next neighbor beyond the Maggards is Elmer McKoon, 64, who used to work full time in construction, and more recently as a janitor. His company slashed the staff in 2008, but a kind boss kept Elmer working one night a week so he could keep his health insurance.

Another friend, Jeff, who was fired this year after 28 years in his job, notes that the biggest impact isn’t the economic hit but the psychological one. Jeff, who didn’t want his full name used for fear it would hurt his job hunt, said he wakes up and feels a stab in his gut as he realizes that he has nowhere to go that day — and has lost his family’s health insurance as well.

“I don’t have the career that I know, and if someone gets sick then I’m homeless as well,” he said.

Unless more people are working, paying taxes and making mortgage payments, it’s difficult to see how we revive the economy or address our long-term debt challenge. While debt is a legitimate long-term problem, the urgent priority should be getting people back to work. America now has more than four unemployed people for each opening. And the longer people are out of work, the less likely it is that they will ever work again.

President Obama is saying the right things lately about creating jobs. But he is saying them far too meekly, and his jobs agenda seems anemic — while the Republican Congress is saying the wrong things altogether.

There are no quick fixes to joblessness, but Washington could temporarily make federal money available to pay for teachers who are otherwise being laid off. We could increase spending on service programs like AmeriCorps that have far more applicants than spots.

We could extend the payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of December. Astonishingly, Republicans in Congress seem to be lined up instinctively against this basic economic stimulus. Could the Tea Party actually favor tax reductions for billionaires but not for working Americans? Could we have found a tax increase the Republican Party favors?

Mr. Obama, with 25 million Americans hurting, will you fight — really fight! — to put jobs at the top of the national agenda?

Get a clue Mr. President - $250,000-a-Year Earners Can’t Afford Jets

POTUS needs to blame his mess on others - Too bad he is sooooo clueless he thinks some own who makes $250K a year can own a Corporate Jet....I understand that earing $250K a year makes you well off but not like the feckless fool in the White House thinks.

Once he is bounced out of office in 2012, Obama will be the one flying around in a corporate jet charging $100K a speech....what a joke.


Note To Obama: $250,000-a-Year Earners Can’t Afford Jets
By Robert Frank - Wall Street Journal

President Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners.

In his news conference today, the president said: “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that’s doing so well to give up that tax break….I don’t think that’s real radical.”

Asking private-jet owners to give up tax breaks may not be that radical. And it probably would be supported by the vast majority of the nonjet-owning voters.

The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren’t likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year–among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012–is unlikely to afford a jet–or even a few charter trips on a jet.

For those, like the president, who may not be well-versed in Jetonomics, here are some of the basics. The numbers come courtesy of Jay Duckson at Central Business jets:

COST OF BUYING A JET

New Citation CJ (entry level jet)–$5 million. Annual operating costs (fuel, hangar space, pilots) about $500,000.

Cheapest Used Jet–$100,000 to $500,000. Annual operating costs (hangar, pilots, mechanics, fuel) about $1 million a year.

COSTS OF CHARTERING A JET

Typical charter–$3,000 an hour

It is possible, of course, that someone earning $250,000 a year might spend 5% to 10% of their annual income on a single flight by chartering, in which case we could call them “corporate-jet fliers.” But it is unlikely. Even more unlikely is someone earning $250,000 a year paying $500,000 to $1 million a year to operate a jet–even if they received it free.

According to Mr. Duckson and others, most of those who own their own jets have net worths of $100 million or more and earn more than $10 million a year–minimum.

The President may be right that is fair to tax private-jet owners. He may even be right that it is fair to raise taxes on those earnings more than $250,000 a year. But the only kind of jet owned by people earning $250,000 a year would be the kind that sits on your desk.

How rich do you think you have to be to own a jet?

CLARIFICATION: An earlier headline stated that “Obama Calls People Making $250,000 ‘Jet Owners.’” While his comments referred to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as “accelerate depreciation,” the jet comment is part of the administration’s broader efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy, defined as those making $250,000 or more.

Government-by-press-release...POTUS reverts to form

One of the key skills any good Leader needs is to LISTEN to others.....any empty headed idjit can stand at a podium and blather on about what they think, the true sign of Leadership is accepting input from others.....especially those who are your "customers "

Well, it should come to no one's surpirse that our present White House doesn't understand this basic principle....They are stone-deaf to anyone else's input as they are the alledged " smartest people " and know better than the rest of us......

The Fool-In-Charge thinks because America's best, the US Navy Seals, offed OBL, he has a free pass to do whatever he wants and America will faun all over him....WRONG.

The economy is still mortibund, good paying jobs with benefits are not being offered (although McDonalds in hiring !!) and the cost of everything is going through the roof... people are getting squeezed like never before even though when GW was President, the DEMS decried the cost of living under Bush but you hear nothing out of the DEMS about the cost of living now that they have control of the White House.

It seems like right now, the Former Senator from Illinois who voted " PRESENT " on most everything should realize that being "Tone Deaf" to the American people is NOT the mark of a Leader...just a Fool who is in love with his own PR.


Obama's one-way conversation
By JULIE MASON 05/17/11 Politico.com

President Obama today met King Abdullah of Jordan in the Oval Office -- statements, no questions. Still, it was better than last week's meeting with the NATO leader: No pool, no statements, no questions, no photos.

Yesterday, Obama met with flood victims and first responders in Memphis. That was a total lockout and the White House took up pool reporting duties, distributing details of the president's closed-door meetings that reporters had to take on faith, or not at all.

The president hasn't taken questions from the press since April 5, and then he only called on four reporters.

That was during the budget impasse, and since then we've seen the birth certificate, the end of Osama bin Laden, a deficit crisis looming, a big immigration reform push, the resignation of his Mideast peace envoy and more -- all without questions, all government-by-press-release.

It's a good way for the White House to control the message, something they are trying to do more as the campaign rumbles to life. But does it meet the standard for transparency and accountability? White House press secretary Jay Carney got a question about it today.

"I'm sure you'll have opportunities," Carney said, adding that Obama would be taking questions on next week's foreign trip.

"As you know, he has given some interviews in that time, two journalists who have asked him questions about all of the pressing issues of the day, and he'll continue to do that," Carney said. "You know, I think his track record of taking questions and giving interviews is very strong and will continue to be strong going forward."

FED JUDGE - "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void"

AWWWW - The White House gets another message from the Judiciary that YOU CANNOT compel people to purchase a commercial product they don't want to buy....Basically, OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL......Game Over OBOTS.....

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.


You were stupid to force this stuff on the American public with PELOSI saying things like " We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.." ARE YOU F^&king kidding me???? What rational person could support any law that the lawmakers have not reviewed the law before it is passed????

I am glad that the "checks & balances" worked......awesome news.

Now, how long before this rulling is carried over to the State of Massachusetts and the State Law gets over turned also.......How's that " Hope & Changey thing" working for you now ????


US judge deals new blow to Obama health reform
By Lucile Malandain (AFP) 01/31/11

WASHINGTON — A second US federal judge Monday declared President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional, sparking a fierce new showdown with Republicans who vow to repeal the historic reform act.

The Obama administration immediately pledged to appeal and branded the ruling by a Florida judge as an "outlier" from the judicial mainstream, warning that health care costs would soar if it was allowed to stand.

But Republicans crowed that the ruling was one step closer to the outright repeal of a law that has been a Democratic dream for decades but that conservatives say will explode the deficit and kill jobs.

US District Judge Roger Vinson said a key provision of the law known as the "individual mandate" exceeds Congress's regulatory powers by requiring Americans to either purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," Vinson said in his ruling, the latest step of a twisting legal battle likely to end up in the US Supreme Court.

"This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."

Vinson agreed with governors and attorneys general from 26 US states that consider the provision unconstitutional.

But the Justice Department quickly said it would appeal Vinson's ruling, and consider all options -- including a stay of the verdict pending appeal -- to ensure the health care law can go into force.

The health care law, which passed last year, is the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the 1960s, reins in insurance company abuses and brings America as close as it has ever been to universal coverage.

"Today's ruling... is a plain case of judicial overreaching," Stephanie Cutter, a senior political assistant to Obama, said in a White House blog post.

"The judge's decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk."

In December, Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District Court in Richmond, Virginia, found that the mandate usurps federal authority and violates the Commerce Clause, a key component of the US Constitution.

Some 12 federal judges have already struck down challenges to the law, and two have upheld the legislation.

Republicans pounced on the latest ruling, seeking fuel for their campaign to overturn the reform -- a vain hope for now, as Obama could wield a presidential veto in the unlikely event a repeal law cleared Congress.

Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the court's decision proved the health care law was a "massive overreach" and exceeded congressional authority.

"We should repeal this health spending bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that will actually lower costs, prevent unsustainable entitlement promises and make it easier for employers to start hiring again," he added.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the ruling a "major victory for the American people and job-creators all across the country."

Obama's Republican foes have claimed the health care law includes rationing for end of life care, would add to the massive deficit and will kill jobs as employers struggle to pay for what they say will be rising premiums.

The new Republican-led House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the health reform law, which reins in insurance firms and seeks to offer near-universal care to Americans for the first time.

Opinion polls have found the US public deeply divided over the health law, with roughly one in five in favor of outright repeal and the rest divided between strengthening the law and rolling back parts of it.

Copyright © 2011 AFP.

Pulling back the curtain on the arrogance of our Imperial President.....

The conventional wisdom is that we will see an Arse-Kicking of epic proportion this Tuesday...I have been writing about it based on going back to the election of Scott Brown into the Senate from my home state, Massachusetts. The "2nd Shot Heard Round The World" gave us an inkling into how people felt back at the beginning of 2010 regarding POTUS and his Presidency.

NOW, 10 months later, the anger has simmered to a full boil. People are fed up with his arrogance, Obamacare, Pelosi, Gietner, Napolitano, Biden and the attitude that they have all displayed towards the American Public who has rejected their views.

The arrogant smug attitude displayed by POTUS was never more on display than when he came to Boston to support his buddy, Deval "Spend-it-all" Patrick.

The enclosed article highlights what he said while in Boston:

In Boston on Oct. 16, Mr. Obama said, "People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared."

No, Mr. President, we are thinking VERY CLEARLY about what you say and how you treat the majority of Americans who want to tell you where to go, and will do so with their votes on Tuesday.

As an aside, the fact that POTUS will be heading overseas for an extended trip immediately after the election to escape the onslaught of "change" that will be arriving at his front door shows the character of an insolent spoiled teenager. When confronted with challenges, he would rather stamp his feet, take a powder and turn tail than stand and take the medicine he richly deserves. What a joke.

Whoever advised him that going overseas right after the mid-term elections would be a good political move is sadly mistaken or maybe it was the decision of a inadequate President deluding himself further.....

You can run, Mr. President, but you cannot hide.

KNIGHT: Pulling back the curtain on Obama's audacity
Americans are witnessing an imperial presidency
By Robert Knight
-
The Washington Times
6:59 p.m., Friday, October 29, 2010

One of the most memorable scenes in "The Wizard of Oz" is when Toto yanks on the curtain to reveal the bogus wizard faking a larger-than-life image. In 2008, the media played the role of the curtain, shielding Barack Obama. Not enough Americans saw his thin resume, lifelong radical connections, sealed college records or brief U.S. Senate voting record, which the National Journalpegged to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Democrat.

At the time, the terrier gamely pulling the curtain was the conservative media, including talk radio, websites, magazines and a few editorial pages.

Now, the curtain is nearly open, with President Obama himself pulling the cord. Facing an almost certain king-sized rebuke tomorrow, he has abandoned any pretense of the moderation that fooled so many in 2008.

Proverbs 16:18 says, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Judge for yourself whether these recent statements meet the haughtiness test:

In Boston on Oct. 16, Mr. Obama said, "People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared."

If he keeps this up, he might get real good at talking down to us, especially those of us "clinging" to our guns and religion.

Speaking on the Spanish-language TV network Univision on Oct. 25, Mr. Obama urged viewers to "punish our enemies."

On Oct. 23, he warned Republicans not to get in his way. Speaking at the University of Minnesota, he blamed the GOP for driving the nation's "car" into a ditch:

"And all the time the Republicans have been standing on the sidelines. They've been looking down, fanning themselves, sipping on a Slurpee [read: mint julep], kicking dirt down into the ditch, kicking dirt in our faces. But we kept pushing. ... And now we get the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, 'We want the keys back.' You can't have the keys back - you don't know how to drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you've got to sit in the back seat."

Not everyone thinks the car is being fixed, however. The Associated Press reports that Mr. Obama's approval rating even among college students is 44 percent, down from 60 percent a year ago.

When he's not demonizing the opposition, Mr. Obama is working on his imperious image. His trip to India on Nov. 6 should finish that job. His entourage will spend enough to bankrupt a small nation, which might be a nice change from his bankrupting our large nation. Wait - it's all our money.

"[T]he president's team has booked the entire Taj Mahal Hotel, including 570 rooms, all banquets and restaurants," the Economic Times reports. ". . . 125 rooms at the Taj President have also been booked, apart from 80 to 90 rooms each in Grand Hyatt and the Oberoi hotels."

Add to that Air Force One, two more jumbo jets, security jets, 45 cars and several U.S. Navy vessels, and the cost of this vacation, oops, state visit, will soar into the tens of millions. For a president who says he's looking out for the little guy, it must be hard to see him from those mighty heights.

In a wonderful new book by the late constitutional attorney John Armor, "These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls," Thomas Paine's works are uniquely arranged by topic with Mr. Armor's commentaries in the margin. In the "On Tyranny" section, Mr. Armor notes that Paine was well ahead of "The Wizard of Oz" in skewering executive privilege. Writing in free verse, Paine targeted King George III. But listen to his words while imagining the Obama junket:

"What is called monarchy, always appears to me

A Silly, contemptible thing. I compare it to something

Kept behind a curtain, about which there is a great deal of bustle and fuss, and a wonderful air of seeming solemnity;

But when, by any accident, the curtain happens

To be open - and the company see what it is,

They burst into laughter."

If only it were that funny. Paine, who first used the term "the United States of America," could not abide tyrants of any kind, no matter how they came to power. He warned, too, about the possibility of an imperial Congress.

If Paine had been asked what he thought of Nancy Pelosi and company tucking into Obamacare a provision forbidding future Congresses from overturning portions of the law, he might have responded with a quote from his essay "The Rights of Man": "The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."

Unless tomorrow's election begins a serious rollback, our grandchildren will be paying for Mr. Obama's and Mrs. Pelosi's extravagant spending well beyond the grave. And it could be curtains for our self-governing republic.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and author of the newly updated "Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.