Republican Writes "The American Jobs Act"

Last Saturday, we noted the President's bad case of premature espeechulation:

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Makes the Most Irrelevant Speech in the History of the Republic ,

where he repeatedly asked Congress to pass a bill that hadn't been written yet. It appears that all of the Democrats, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, failed to file the bill which Obama specifically called in his speech "The American Jobs Act".

But, since there wasn't actually a bill by that name that had been filed, a Republican lawmaker has stepped into the breach!

President Obama repeatedly asked members of Congress to pass the American Jobs Act last week. But when no Democrat filed Obama’s bill after he presented it to Congress, a conservative congressman swiped the name for his own legislation.

The American Jobs Act introduced in the House of Representatives looks quite different from the version President Obama outlined in his speech to Congress. Instead of hiking taxes on working Americans to pay for another stimulus, Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-TX) legislation offers a tax cut.

UPDATE: Gohmert’s bill now has a number. It’s HR 2911.

Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Maybe next time, Obama will actually have a bill for Congress to pass when he repeats ad nauseum, "Pass this bill"?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Bam's Jobs Bill Jam

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

____________________________

Same body, different suit?

Same septic tank, different commode?

(Make up your own and insert here).

Senator Mike Lee (R, Utah) used the phrase "Old wine in old bottles."

Last week’s jobs bill speech by President Barack Obama should have all but pounded the final nail into the pine box of Obama's presidency - that is, if there is any sense of order, common sense and justice to the universe. 

How bad is it for the president?

A Republican has just won Anthony Weiner's old seat in Congress here in New York City - a district that hasn't gone Republican since before anyone ever heard the term "social security." 

Babe Ruth was only in his fourth season with the Yankees the last time the Ninth District went GOP.  

The first licensed commercial radio station in the United States had been on the air only three years.

Ronald Reagan was not yet a teenager.

In bluer-than-blue New York, in a district that is at best 4 to 1 Democrat over Republican, that's how bad it's getting for Bam.

The Obama "jobs speech" - the highly anticipated, built-up-beyond-proportion, latest-in-a-long-string-of-America-saving-jobs-speeches from Brack Obama - was yet another one of those head-shaking "just wow" events. (I have them cataloged and meticulously cross-referenced using sophisticated database software).

Not that any of us in the thinking class expected anything less than what we received from the Chief Executive. Not that any of us believed for one moment that anything other than the same-old, same-old was coming our way from the podium of the House chamber.

It was simply one of those, "Wow, I can't believe that this guy is in charge of the whole shootin' match" moments.

If it weren't for the fact that the economic well-being of the nation hangs in the balance, one could almost feel sorry for the man being so far out of his league. If it weren’t for the fact that his experiments in nation transformation have resulted in the highest poverty levels in decades, one could almost take him by the hand, slap him on the back and say, “You tried, kid. But we gotta get some people in here who can fix this. Now, let’s go get some pancakes.”

All that's missing at the White House these days are the antlers and headlights.

While Barack Obama continues to make the job of conservative talk radio hosts tremendously easy, he makes America's economic recovery more difficult. It’s almost inconceivable to believe that he cannot see what he and his ever-encroaching big government ways are doing to this country. But once again, he’s peddling the same spend-spend-spend, expansive policies that have already failed - policies that also stunk up the joint when his predecessor, George W. Bush, implemented his own inane "stimulus" package. It was stupid then; five times as stupid when Obama did it the first time; and even more stupid now that the president wants to try it again.

If ever a man has personified - in spades (no slur intended) - Albert Einstein's over-quoted definition of insanity, it is President Barack Obama. If Obama's proposed jump start to an economy already paralyzed by the ropes of big government is to be taken seriously by anyone not under the influence, then Einstein truly had it pegged.

The logic of the President's thinking would have us handing out shots of Jack Daniels at alcohol anonymous meetings.

Seriously, are we to believe that nearly a half-trillion dollars in additional spending is all we really needed to get us over the hump? That the first Obama stimulus was almost the fix we required to bring us back to economic health? Were we really that close to the fix? Just a half billion dollars off? Did we miss it by that much?

Why not get this economy roaring back with a vengeance? Why not a trillion dollars more? Or five trillion more? While we’re at it, why not raise the minimum wage to $18.50 an hour? And tax the rich at a 70% tax rate? (Even if those Americans making $500,000 a year or more were taxed at a full one hundred percent, revenues wouldn’t even cover the entirety of this year’s deficit. There’d still be $500 billion left to fund somehow).

We already tax the rich in this country.

Yet, there’s a block of taxpayers – approximately 47% - who pay no federal income tax.

“Fair share” anyone?

The President’s rhetoric is tired. He talks about tax cuts in his new plan to get Americans working again, but what he’s proposing aren’t genuine tax cuts. They are temporary tax credits (which means the money is being swiped from elsewhere only to be redistributed) to the tune of approximately $500 a year for the average middle class American family. That’s a whole $500 a year. That’s about $42 dollars a month, or about $10 extra bucks a week.

Shopping malls beware. The stampede’s a-coming.

How does taking money out of the economy and returning it in nearly infinitesimal chunks to other people who did not earn it jump start a flailing economy? When did it ever?

The last Obama tax credit – the one that brought the payroll tax down from 6.2% to 4.2% - really got things moving, didn’t it?

And now, he wants to do it again?

Genuine tax cuts are obviously great - nay, necessary ... but they have to be the right kind of tax cuts. Minuscule credits at the expense of the job creators in this country will prove to be, as it always does, nothing more than ineffective, feel-good, campaign-fodder class warfare. 

It will solve nothing.

And don’t think for second that Democrats will back this “jobs bill” without additional stimulus spending tacked on.

Bank on it.

And why didn't the President actually - and finally - define what "fair share" means in regard to taxing "the rich?" What an opportunity it could have been for him for set the parameters of the debate. He could have told us once and for all what the fairest level of taxation for the "fortunate" among us is.

And notice how the President used the word "fortunate" to describe the wealthiest Americans, as opposed to "hard working," "creative" or "successful."

That simply would never do. It would alienate and/or offend.

That's because good fortune suggests randomness and chance - the luck of the draw.

Creativity, innovation and hard work, on the other hand, place the onus directly on the individual. It suggests that wealth may actually be deserved and earned - an anathema to Obama and his equality-over-liberty ilk.

Think about this: The left believes that government is the answer to almost everything, that only government can get things right. But look around. Government is practically everywhere in the form of taxation, over-regulation, the takeover of private industry, and so on. The size of government continues to grow. Yet, there are now 22 million children living in poverty, according to Government figures. There are now more people without health care coverage than there were last year. Unemployment is fixed at around 9%. There was absolutely no job growth in August.

And yet, the President wants more government?

Oh yeah, it's bad.

Paging Mr. Einstein.

-

Barack Obama: Soup-Ladler-in-Chief

Do the words "unclear on the concept" ring a bell? Obama seems hellbent (imagery intended) not to commemorate the cowardly attack on American soil that killed three thousand innocent men women and children on 9/11/2001. We have discussed his trying to substitute his "Day of Service" nationally, here , here and Andrew Roman's take here.

There is a time and a place for volunteering. There is a time and a place for service to one's community and to one's neighbors. But there is a time to remember and a time to mourn. You like to compare yourself to Abraham Lincoln, Mr. President? Lincoln's Gettysburg address was about consecrating a cemetery. About honoring the fallen. About the vision of the Founders and the courage of those who gave their lives to preserve the Republic. The war had wrought a terrible cost upon America. Lincoln didn't try to change the subject. He didn't try to substitute a pet project of his own. "Hey! I've got a great idea! Instead of moping around this cemetery, let's all pick up trash along the highway! That will make America beautiful again!"

When the time came for the President of the United States to honor the fallen, Lincoln was not in the mess tent passing out hardtack.

Mr. President: There must be at least three hundred better days out of the year for you to ladle soup on a "Day of Service". (Okay two hundred if we rule out your golf dates!) There are a minimum number of days that the Commander-in-Chief needs to put on his big boy pants and stand up for his country: The Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and 9/11 come to mind.

It has been pointed out, that "community service" is often given out as punishment to some who have committed a minor offense. Mr. President: Do you believe that America needs some form of penance or punishment? Did you really sleep through twenty years of Jeremiah Wright and his "chickens coming home to roost" sermons?

Are you part of the "blame America first" crowd, Mr. President? Then why are you acting like it?



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama Takes a Bow on 9/11

I didn't see this. Every time some program would cut to Obama reading a passage of Scripture, I turned away. This man may be able to read from a teleprompter (unless the word is "corpsman"), but the two instances I cannot bear to hear his whiny drone is when he tries to read Scripture, which he clearly was not taught at the feet of Reverend Wright, because he tells us for twenty years, he did not listen! The other, is reading the citation of brave men picked to receive the Medal of Honor. I've heard people read the phone book with more passion and enthusiasm.

Had Mr. Obama more familiarity with either the Scripture or with warfare, he might have known the passage he was reading referred to a bow, as in "bow and arrow" as opposed to the bow he routinely makes in front of every known head of state.

Next Sunday, if he can be dragged off the golf course, maybe Michelle can elbow him in the ribs whenever he starts to nod off during the sermon?

H/T Gateway Pundit

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Makes the Most Irrelevant Speech in the History of the Republic

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is trying to steal my thunder:

The Irrelevancy of the Obama Presidency

This speech will go down in history. Unfortunately, not in a good way. Traditionally, the President will speak to a joint session of Congress for an annual State of The Union address, or some pressing policy matter or something of relatively great importance. Now, I'm not saying unemployment is unimportant,but the President's speech was.

First of all, he didn't even believe it himself:

Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that’s made things worse.

Urgent? Crisis?? His speech was what? 45 minutes? Are you telling me that he couldn't have delayed his ten day Martha's Vineyard vacation 45 minutes to make a speech he considered both urgent and a "crisis"?

To make matters worse, he said nothing of substance. A lot of vague platitudes about how American needed jobs and Congress needed to pass the jobs bill.

Drumroll please! ..................What "jobs bill"? He didn't submit one. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. There's a funny video going around, a montage of Obama saying nothing but all his variations on "Pass the bill". I counted 14 times in that video, Levin said he counted 17 or 18 times in the speech.

But, Obama hadn't delivered a jobs bill to Congress yet. He was selling a "pig in a poke", as it were, channeling the Home Shopping Network or Billy Mays. I half expected the video to have a countdown clock of how many minutes were left to get this great deal!

So why does the President of the United States call to address a joint session of Congress for a nothingburger speech about a vaporware bill that possibly hasn't even been written yet?

I speculated earlier that he might need a captive studio audience to pop up with standing ovations and provide applause to punctuate the most mundane policy projections. It was worse than I thought. Not only was his "jobs bill" short on specifics, there was nothing at all except Obama's snake oil spiel about what those specifics might be.

Wouldn't it made more sense to bring a substantive and specific bill and sell the positive aspects of that?

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.
...Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.

Again. Obama doesn't believe it either. I mean, think about it. If this jobs bill were nothing controversial, with bipartisan support, that wasn't going to break the bank adding to the deficit, why would anyone possibly oppose it? Why the hard sell infomercial in front of a joint session of Congress to sell something that, according to Obama (stop laughing!) didn't need selling?

Now for the "class envy" part of the program:

I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.

Tax breaks and loopholes and profits, oh, my! You want to see the irony in this (and why he probably doesn't believe this either), look at what he proposes in other parts of the speech:

it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers,

Really? I though tax breaks were only for the "most fortunate" who can "best afford to pay taxes"?

small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages.

Um, don't you usually call those "loopholes", Mr. President? Some loopholes are more equal than others, I guess! I guess they're tax breaks if you like them and "loopholes" if you don't!

Another hypocrisy moment:

I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

This is the guy who tried his damnedest to end the Bush era, across the board tax cuts just last December.

I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs right here in the United States of America

Too funny! Jeffrey Immelt of GE, Obama's top business adviser, who recently moved a hundred year old division of GE Health to Red China (while GE paid no domestic corporate taxes in the US), was sitting in the audience next to the president's wife. The word "cozy" comes to mind.

And speaking of "best-connected lobbyists" would that include solar panel companies, run and owned by political cronies who frequently visit the White House, and contribute generously to Democrat campaign coffers in return for half a billion dollars in loan guarantees for a business that had never shown a profit and was unlikely to in the future? The kind of access to the White House that Solyndra had, would you characterize that, Mr. Obama as something "few of the most affluent citizens enjoy"? (We'll save "most profitable" for the stand up portion of the program.)

And Warren Buffett, whom the president mentioned is also quite a bit in arrears on his taxes. That qualifies him for a cabinet position, doesn't it Mr. Obama? Or at least a Czarship!

Another irony alert: Mr. Obama, just who do you think is responsible for creating all those "tax breaks and loopholes" for "the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations"? Congress, primarily composed of Democrats for more years than not in the last half century created all those exemptions, all those breaks, all those so called "loopholes", often in exchange for campaign contributions.

So, you create those "loopholes" for your friends and the wealthy and those who contribute to your campaign or increase your power, and then you make a big show of being "shocked, Shocked!" that they would actually take advantage of what you created for them. Yeah. Right.

And now for the really big lie. I'm sorry, there's no polite way to say it. Obama is lying through his teeth!

This is the American Jobs Act. It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, for teachers, for veterans, for first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed. It will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief to small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle class. And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act

It would be one thing if Obama said his cuts would slow the rate of government spending beyond what they might have been, but to claim that new programs are going to be "paid for" by reducing the amount of deficit spending, is not telling the truth. It is not "paid for" if we still have to borrow money to do it. The "agreement" which Obama claims to save a "trillion dollars over ten years will not be binding on Congress for even the next two years, and does not reduce government spending, even if it did. The truth is, the size of government spending under Obama's "agreement" continues to rise every year for the next ten years.

Obama is implying that the cuts would produce tangible funds that could be used to pay for his program. In truth, he's just playing a shell game with the debt.

It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas

Which, even if it happens (and don't hold your breath or we'll all look like Smurfs!), won't begin to cut into the nation's debt. And personally, I don't think it will happen, which will trigger this gutless administration's plan to gut the military, at a time when we have boots on the ground in multiple wars and conflicts around the world.

I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act

Sweeping back the sea with a broom might not be a hard task for the Lightbringer, who makes the sea levels lower at his word, but Congress needs to run for re-election every two to six years, and might be beholden to special interests and pork laden projects designed to keep them in office. Obama glibly says, "We'll just cut a few more programs between now and Christmas!"

Here's the extra credit portion of the program: Can you think of even one program (outside the military) that Obama has personally suggested that the country might be able to do without?

Remember when Candidate Obama said if he were president, he would go through the budget line by line to eliminate waste? In the last three years (even accounting for the budget the Democrats failed to pass last year), how many of those lines items do you think he sent to Nancy Pelosi while she was Speaker of the House, to eliminate. How many times did he sit down with Harry Reid, (and only use the Negro dialect when he wanted to) to urge the Senate to take his line by line evaluation of the budget to heart? Beuller? Beuller??

So, Congress is unlikely or unable (or both) to find enough cuts to keep the country from going further and further into debt, but that's okay, so long as it's more of the good debt (the kind that already lowered America's credit rating once and probably will again before we inaugurate our next president).

And when nothing gets done, Obama will parade his laundry list of platitudes and good intentions on the stump and blame Republicans for not passing the American Jobs Bill.

...Whatever that is!


More at Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

You Think Obama Wants Us to Pass The Bill?

I have sooooo much to say about The Obama Save My Job speech, but that will have to wait until I have a little more time. In the meantime, enjoy a montage of the substance of the President's speech.

H/T Jammie Wearing Fool

This Last Week's Poll

This Last Week's Poll, In Obama's Job Speech:

He will blame Bush (62%)

He will blame Republicans in Congress (79%)

He will blame hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. (41%)

He will not accept any blame for his own policies (66%)

Unfortunately, Obama's speech was not as substantive of any of the above.

Multiple choices and Obama's crack budget office accountants may account for totals greater than 100%

Thank you for your participation!
Not a scientific poll. Respondents are self selecting. Questions are drawn from fortune cookies, hieroglyphics and tomorrow’s New York Times.

Please make your opinion known in this week's poll.

Keith Ohlbermann Condemns Hoffa's Violent Rhetoric

When Keith Ohlbermann is the voice of reason for the liberals, how far must they have fallen?



"...we too deserve repudiation..."

Some brain dead liberals are condemning Fox for "editing" Hoffa's remarks. Note, too, in the video above, the first footage is from ABC News, who may also have edited the tape, albeit in a different place. Could have been Keith Olhbermann or even the insidious Breitbart himself! Constraint of time? Or Evil, Dastardly Attempt to Deceive? You decide!

On a scale of one to ten, the remarks Hoffa made were not that bad in themselves, IMHO. But coming on the heels of "the tea party can go straight to hell", and, if I remember correctly, Ms. Waters volunteering to help them get there, for the President to condone the violent language he decried immediately after the AZ shooting is rank hypocrisy.

CORRECTION: We erroneously thought Mr. Olbermann was referring to Jimmy Hoffa's use of "army" and "war" and "take these sons of bitches out" when referring to the tea party yesterday. Apparently, Mr. Olbermann was actually speaking in reaction to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.

We regret the error.

I guess I should have known better. I was trying to give Keith the benefit of the doubt for doing the right thing. My apologies for any hypocrisy this may have exposed on the Left.

H/T Pat Dollard

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

El Presidente - This is Your Army...

"...we are ready to march!" -Generalissimo Hoffa

Job Scorecard: Barry 14, Barry's economy -1,100

It's time for another installment of "Let's do the math"! I'll wait a couple minutes for all you "social science" majors to clear out. Everybody else? Good.



The Obama administration "invested" in America to get America working again. How's that working out for us? Obama seems convinced that "green energy" is the wave of the future and the path to prosperity, creating thousands of jobs. Let's take a look at two of the administration's efforts



$20 Million for an insulation project in Seattle to conserve energy: Net 14 jobs.

$500 Million dollars for a solar cell manufacturer in California: Net -1,100 jobs.



Let's recap, shall we? $520 Million dollars spent, brought the US a net of one thousand and eighty six jobs lost.



Like the brother-in-law who's totaled every car you've ever loaned him, why do I have the feeling that Obama is going to ask us for the keys again Thursday night, and telling us, "This time it will be different"?

Krauthammer on Obama's Regulatory Fiats -video

H/T John Lott

President In Absentia

No. "Absentia" isn't a country (otherwise, Michelle would have booked a flight there by now!), it's Latin for "the lights are on, but nobody's home". Don't bother calling the White House today. Barry's not home. He left for Camp David, to enjoy a four day weekend, to recover from his grueling ten day vacation after three rigorous days of campaigning.



Whew! Sometimes it's hard to figure how he ever squeezes in a game of golf at all!

Obama on Speech Delay: "We are Not Amused."

According to Politico, not amused at all!

It seemed like a trivial matter: On Wednesday, House Republicans forced the president to delay his speech to a joint session of Congress by one day.



Who cares? The White House cares. Very much.



“It is a big deal that the House said ‘no’ to the president from our end,” a White House source with intimate knowledge of what took place between the House and the president told me Thursday. “This confirms what we all know: They will do anything in the House to muck us up.”

Is it just me? Or do the echoes of Rahm Emanuel suggest that the word they used wasn't "muck"?

On Wednesday, the White House staff did not know exactly what President Barack Obama was going to say in his major jobs speech, but it knew exactly where and when he was going to say it.



The location would be before a joint session of Congress in the august marble-clad chamber of the House of Representatives. And the speech would be next Wednesday night, when the House returned from vacation, and there would be maximum TV viewership.

I don't know if anyone is expecting anything other than warmed over platitudes, "I feel your pain" and suggestions to spend yet more millions if not trillions of federal dollars to borrow our way to prosperity.



But, if the speech really were important or substantive, why the delays? First of all, I heard a suggestion today that Obama might try to deliver the speech in a thirty minute slot before the kick off of the NFL season. If this is true, it is quite damning on many levels.



First, it suggests that it is once more an exhibition of petty gamesmanship on Obama's part. Aside from the fact that Obama and his teleprompter very seldom can say anything in under thirty minutes, this would seem to preclude any time for a rebuttal from the Republicans. Second, How substantive or comprehensive could it be if he can spell it out in thirty minutes or less. What is he? Delivering a pizza?



And third, if he could spell it out in thirty minutes or less, are you telling me that he could not delay his ten day vacation in Martha's Vineyard for thirty freaking minutes to lay out a plan to turn the nation's economy around?



And what's the BFD, as Joe Biden would say, about addressing a joint session of Congress? If he can lay it out in thirty minutes or less, make your speech from the Oval Office and let the weight of your ideas carry the day.



And then it hit me. Why the need to address the joint session of Congress, other than to screw with the Republicans and their presidential debate? It is this:



There will be so little substance to the President's speech, that he needed a studio audience to give him standing ovations and applause to make his lackluster ideas, platitudes and spending proposals sound more impressive than they really are.



This is Obama’s M.O. His Styrofoam Greek columns writ large. Remember his speech in front of 10 Downing Street address? He wasn’t visiting any British head of state, he was just using it as a backdrop for his campaign.



This guy Obama is a world class phony and poseur. God help the United States of America.



H/T Memeorandum



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Speech Trumped By Boehner's Full (or Empty) House

It looks like President Petulant has tried his hand at petty school yard politics. Did you hear about Obama's planned "jobs address"? This wasn't urgent enough to tell the nation before he went on vacation for ten days, but all of the sudden, he wants to make an address to Congress the same day, the same time the Republicans had scheduled a candidate's debate at the Reagan Library.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has asked President Obama to address a joint-session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8, when it wouldn't conflict with the Republican presidential debate.



Citing logistical difficulties, Boehner requested that Obama hold his jobs address, which Obama wants to deliver next Wednesday, one day later.



The Speaker's letter made no mention of the more obvious conflict: between the president's speech, and a Republican presidential debate scheduled on Wednesday night at 8 p.m. EST. That debate is the first of the post-Labor Day political season, and the first one in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is set to participate.

It was a juvenile move. Strictly "bush league" (Small "B"). He wanted to upstage the Republicans on the one hand, and use Congress as a bunch of props and a backdrop to stage the glory that is Obama.

One small problem: The President has to be invited to address Congress. Apparently, the President didn't even ask Congress about the speech, but arrogantly expected that if he said "jump" the peasants would ask "How high?".



Enter the adults with a cold splash of harsh reality for President Petulant. Boehner said that there might be "parliamentary or logistical impediments" that might interfere with his speech. That's right. "Parliamentary" (wink, wink) or "logistical" (nudge, nudge) impediments". If fact, I think that Boehner could probably give Obama an iron clad guarantee that there'd be at the very least a parliamentary impediment to the President's proposed schedule.



Note to the Obama White House: This ain't bean bag.





H/T Memeorandum

Obama: "Kiss of Death" to Yet Another "Green" Company

Remember when Barack Obama told us that "Green" energy was the wave of the future, providing the jobs the economy needed while keeping the air cleaner and enabling us to clone unicorns?? Okay. I may have made that last part up!



But, another company that Obama visited, hyped and funneled large amounts of federal money to, is going belly up. I know! Big surprise!

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra's CEO said.



A California-based solar company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will shut down.



The company, Solyndra Inc., said Wednesday it would suspend its manufacturing operations and lay off 1,100 employees effective immediately. The company said it intends to file a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.



“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.”

Oh, really? "Regulatory and policy uncertainties"? Would those be the regulations and policies generated by the Democrat controlled legislature and governor's mansion, or the would those be the regulations and policies generated by the Democrat controlled Senate and White House?



The mind reels!

Solyndra received the $535 million stimulus loan guarantee from the Energy Department in 2009 to help finance the construction of a new plant to manufacture solar panels.

A half a billion here, a half a billion there...pretty soon it adds up to real money!



What are the odds that the current resident of the White House will take this as a sign that "Green" technologies are not necessarily the engine to drive the economy out of this recession, or do you think he will double down on stupid?



Yeah. Me, too.



H/T Memeorandum

"His Master's Voice"

"His Master's Voice"



The old RCA dog had nothing on Obama!

"Words, just Words" - Read While You Wait!

Appropriately, from this perspective, Obama looks smaller than the teleprompter...and he is. Sheesh! You'd think the guy could say something on occasion without relying on someone else's words!



H/T The War Planner

Name That Famous Movie Quote...

They're here!

Perry and Barry: "Boys Will Be Boys..."

Posted without comment.



H/T The Other McCain

Sí, Se Puede…¿Como se dice... “Throw the Bums Out”?

The following bilingual post is brought to you by the letters "W, T & F" and by the numbers "2012".

In 2008, Obama won 57 percent of the state’s Hispanic vote, which has historically leaned Republican. Now, 72 percent of Florida Hispanic voters say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election, according to the Magellan poll. And the numbers don’t change when Obama is matched up with Republican candidates:

What is striking is how poorly Barack Obama is doing among Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida. The ballot test between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney finds the president trailing Mitt Romney by 39 points, with 62 percent of Hispanic voters supporting Mitt Romney and only 23 percent supporting Barack Obama. The Perry‐Obama ballot test among Hispanic voters finds 56 percent supporting Rick Perry​ and 25 percent supporting the president. The Bachmann‐Obama ballot test among Hispanic voters finds Michele Bachmann with 51 percent support and 30 percent for Barack Obama.

Okay, okay...¿como se dice...schadenfreude? Yes, we can...throw the bums out!



H/T Weasel Zippers