The Debt-End Bus Tour

I know, I couldn't stay away for long. But I just had to give an update on the ridiculous bus tour that Barack Obama is perpetrating conducting right now. There's too much there to ignore.

First off, you know it's a transparent sham when even the AP calls it 'a hunt for photo ops'. Funded by taxpayers, naturally. The bottom line in all the posturing, though, is the question of what Obama is doing (or going to do) about the economy. He has yet to put forward any kind of a plan despite repeated assertions that his position and plan are 'well known' to everyone. Of course, since the CBO can't score speeches, that's precisely what Obama's next solution is going to be: another speech. Skepticism abounds:

After months under fire for producing no plan to address the debt, deficit and unemployment, the president has at last decided to … give another speech. The Washington Times reports:

Seeking a jolt for a wilting economy, President Obama will give a major speech in early September to announce new ideas for speeding up job growth and helping the struggling poor and middle class, a senior administration official told the Associated Press.

The president’s plan is likely to contain tax cuts, jobs-boosting infrastructure ideas and steps that would specifically help the long-term unemployed. The official emphasized that all of Mr. Obama’s proposals would be fresh ones, not a rehash of plans he has pitched for many weeks and still supports, including his “infrastructure bank” idea to finance construction jobs.

On a significant and related front, Mr. Obama also will present a specific plan to cut the suffocating long-term national debt and to pay for the cost of his new short-term economic ideas.

His debt proposal will be bigger than the $1.5 trillion package that a new “supercommittee” of Congress must come up with by late November.

Hmm. Sounds a little like the budget speech he gave in April — a roundabout way of addressing the problem without addressing the problem and, more importantly, without committing to a concrete plan.

Hot Air also adds this:

More not to look for: Any assumption of responsibility from the president, who, as he has toured the Midwest to make the case to the American people that he has “stabilized” the economy ... has made a point to paint an image of this Congress as the do-nothing obstacle to his purportedly proactive leadership.

Yep, that seems to be one of his recurring themes these days. Of course, even that facade will only happen after his next vacation. Upon hearing that news, Donald Trump mused that Obama 'takes more vacations than any other human being' he's ever seen. Hard to argue with that, really.

Since there's a complete lack of official plannage right now, let's look at some of the things Obama's minions are saying. Their favorite word seems to be 'stimulus'. More specifically, they think 'stimulus' is what is needed. Of course, it would be wise to examine what they consider to be 'stimulus'. We all remember the infamous cash dumps from a couple years ago that did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, but what are they talking about now? Try more food stamps. No, I'm not kidding. That's as a follow up to other great stimulus ideas like extending jobless benefits and preparing for a space invasion. All good stuff, to be sure, and probably at least part of the reason that Obama's approval rating on the economy is at a new all-time low:

Almost 50 points underwater on the seminal issue of the age. If that holds and he figures out a way to get reelected anyway, maybe he really is the messiah.

That had better be some speech next month, champ.

A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.

Obama earns similarly low approval for his handling of the federal budget deficit (24%) and creating jobs (29%).

Note well: Among independents he’s under 50 percent on all seven key metrics, bottoming out in the low 20s on jobs and the economy and in the teens on the deficit.

Over at Rasmussen, the number who say the country’s on the right track stands at a sparkling 15 percent, down 10 points in just a month.

His approval ratings are making gravity look sluggish. This is what continually amazes and dismays me about the current Republican leadership - they should be hammering away at these numbers day in and day out, boldly and aggressively attacking on every front. *sigh*

But trifle not a liberal with fact or reality! Obama is still peddling the notion that we're not in danger of another recession:

Who wants to be the one to tell him?

“I don’t think we’re in danger of another recession, but we are in danger of not having a recovery that’s fast enough to deal with a genuine unemployment crisis for a whole lot of folks out there,” Mr. Obama told CBS News Senior Business Correspondent Anthony Mason. “And that’s why we need to be doing more.”…

“What is absolutely true is confidence matters,” Mr. Obama replied. “We should not have had any kind of brinksmanship around the debt ceiling.”

“I wish [House Speaker John Boehner] had taken me up on a grand bargain to deal with our long term debt and deficit,” he said. “We still have the opportunity to fix that. It’s not too late. I will be putting forward a plan that will be similar to the plan I put forward to the speaker.”

Translation: If we do end up in a double dip, it’ll be your fault. Just like everything else.

I dunno, I might actually agree with him on this one. It truly can't be said we're in danger of another recession when we actually haven't pulled out of the first one yet. But, that's a debate for another time.

Anyway, the mind-bogglingly bass-ackwards nature of this bus tour doesn't end with the economic facts of the day. Oh, no, there's a healthy dose of hypocrisy, too. Get a load of this...

[W]hile Obama’s public remarks were often filled with implicit threats against resistant Republicans, he also talked at length about the promise and potential of America, and how the three days viewing the country aboard a specially outfitted bus had reminded him of that.

...

He touched upon red-blooded American motifs. “We’ve got folks in America driving Kias and Hyundais. I want to see folks in Korea driving Fords and Chryslers and Chevys,” Obama said Tuesday in Peosta. “ I want to sell goods all over the world that are stamped with three words: 'Made in America.'”

All fine and good. But the buses he's using on this tour were custom made for this trip...in Canada. One Republican Congressman commented, "Well, I guess he not only likes Canadian health care, but he likes Canadian RV's". Indeed. And has anyone stopped to ask why the colors of these buses are black and red (colors long associated with Communism) rather than red, white, and blue? And what about the sheer green-ness of the whole thing? After all, it's a 40-car 2-minute procession everywhere it goes? How many trees are being planted to compensate for the evil, EVIL carbon footprint he's laying down all over these states? Hypocrisy abounds, my friends.

With liberals, it always does.

*****************

Special bonus feature for the day: Real or Fake (government spending, that is)? Watch all the way to the end...

Who says we can't make actual cuts in government...?

The Book Of Eli

Okay, let's take a break from politics for a moment. A non-politics blog post I've wanted to do for a long time is a review of the movie The Book of Eli.

First off, if you're the type to avoid spoilers, stop reading now. This movie has been out for almost a year, so if you haven't seen it by now, you're not likely to do so...unless you suddenly find a compelling reason. So, in the interest of, well, sparking interest, I'm going to share a bunch of spoilers. You've been warned.

Starring Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, and Mila Kunis, this story is set in a post-apocalyptic future thirty years from now. Brutality and bare subsistence is the order of the day, and humanity has largely been reduced to a violent and meager lot trying to eek out a miserable existence in a washed-out and barren world, with few old enough to remember what it was like before the bombs went off. One of those is Eli (played by Washington), a wanderer who carries with him a book -- the Bible -- and a single directive from God: to protect the book and go West.

Along the way, he meets a ruthless thug named Carnegie (Oldman) who more or less runs a town by virtue of his control of the water supply. He, too, is old enough to remember the world before the bombs, and knows the power that resides in 'the book'. Unlike Eli, however, his motivation is purely selfish, and he lusts for the book only as a means to control the people. Copies of the book are essentially non-existent, however, and a throwaway line in the movie explains that survivors blamed the bombs on the book, so all copies were burned years ago. When Carnegie hears that Eli carries the book, he will stop at nothing to trade for or steal it.

One of his attempts to get the book is by forcing a girl in his employ named Solara (Kunis) to try to seduce Eli. Eli gently turns her down, and instead shows her how to pray. This is the first time we really see the stark difference between Eli and the rest of the world. Eli, of course, refuses to be taken in by Carnegie's schemes, and moves on from the town. Solara follows him to enlist his help, and it's not long before Eli saves Solara from roadside thugs. Carnegie, too, is pursuing Eli, all pretenses at negotiation for the book gone. On the run, Eli defends himself and Solara against Carnegie's forces while teaching Solara a completely different outlook on life, relationships, and the world, all based on what he'd learned from the book. Eli seems to be protected from on high, avoiding attack after attack, bullet after bullet, burning through Carnegie's henchmen at a startling rate and almost inerrant in his own fighting technique. Carnegie isn't so lucky, however, and gets shot in one of the melees. Not surprisingly given the state of the world, his wound becomes infected.

Eventually, Carnegie's brutality and obsession overcomes Eli's defenses, as Eli is shot and left for dead, and both Solara and the book fall into Carnegie's hands. Solara escapes and comes back for Eli, only to find that he is staggering onward (to the West) despite his injury. When questioned by Solara, Eli explained that he'd spent so many years protecting the book that he forgot to live by what it said. He'd been given a message by God, and he would follow it to the end while trusting God to hold him up along the way.

Carnegie lets them go, exultant with finally owning the book he had sought for so long, only to find out that the book that Eli had guarded so fiercely was written in Braille, and completely useless to Carnegie. As this realization dawns, he is overcome by his infected wound, and as he becomes weaker and weaker, he realizes that his pursuit of Eli and the book has reduced his henchmen -- and thus his power and influence -- to such an extent that he is vulnerable to a revolting citizenry. Justice is served.

In the meantime, Eli and Solara find their way to the West Coast, and San Francisco. There they find a pocket of civilized people, struggling to rebuild human society and rise out of the morass that mired the rest of the world. They had just completed the construction of the first post-apocalypse printing press and were trying to collect works of literature and religion for printing and distribution. After traveling West for years with nothing for companionship but the Bible, Eli has the whole thing memorized and dictates it for the printer shortly before he dies. Thus, the Bible takes a prominent place in the new birthplace of human education and learning. Eli's mission is complete.

This movie is not for the faint of heart, nor the flimsy of stomach. Several parts are pretty graphically brutal, and many others strongly imply behavior that any normal person would find beyond repugnant. However, I believe the brilliance of this movie is that these characteristics are peripheral, and used primarily to amplify the core message of the story: faith in God's ability to provide and protect, if we would only trust in Him.

If you look at the Bible (and, for that matter, at history), you'll see over and over that God's awesomeness, faithfulness, and power are most on display when humanity is at its worst. Time after time, the Israelites turned away from God, but God never turned away from them. Jesus Christ was brutally punished, tortured, and executed for the crime of being the only perfect man to walk the Earth, and the Son of God. Saul, a ruthless antagonist to early Christians, converted to the second most prominent figure in the New Testament, and is largely responsible for spreading Christianity to the Gentiles. The list of examples is vast, and continues with relatively contemporary examples like Victor Frankl in the Nazi extermination camps, missionaries serving the primitive tribes who killed their relatives, and so on. There is nothing that humanity can do that is so evil that God cannot transform it into beauty and redemption. This movie illustrates that idea incredibly well.

No doubt some will say that such violence and vicious conflict isn't necessary to illustrate God's love for humanity, and that's probably true. But think about every impactful and emotional story you've ever heard, seen or read - didn't it include a generous amount of antagonism before the triumphant conclusion? What good is any story without conflict? B.O.R.I.N.G. Conflict is required, and the bigger the conflict the more satisfying the victory. It's storytelling at its core, and this particular story is a diamond.

Not understanding why, and not knowing his destination, Eli nevertheless forged ahead on faith, even when the book was no longer in his hands. His is a story of faith in God, and one that illustrated just how capable God was of fulfilling his promise of protection and providence. There were plenty of trials and grievous wounds to Eli along the way, and he could have bailed at any point during those difficulties, but he didn't. Because of his faith, God remained steadfast to Eli through it all, and all of humanity would be blessed because of it. I think this is a lesson that most of us could take to heart in our own lives.

Some movies try to be somewhat circumspect in their treatment of Christian values. The Chronicles of Narnia movies are obvious references to Christianity...for Christians. But I think that it's very possible for non-believers to completely miss the secondary meanings of so much in there. Not so with The Book of Eli. The Christian message is overt, Scripture is commonplace, and I don't see how it could be mistaken. I was genuinely shocked at the fact that this movie ever came out of Hollywood.

So, is this a good movie? No. It's a great movie. It's got action, heroism, a vile villain, thought-provoking emotion, and a walloping good message. Is this a movie for everyone? Absolutely not (under no circumstances should children be allowed to watch this!). But if you can get past the objectionable stuff, this one is well worth watching.

For a first-hand look, here's the official trailer:

You're Supremely Dense

That's really the only possible conclusion one can come to when contemplating that Barack Obama has embarked upon a bus tour of Midwestern swing states to 'let the president hear stories from real Americans across the country who are suffering from the effects of a slumping economy', and apparently thinks that you're going to buy it.

Sure, he knows what's really got people down. But that's all according to his plan, and he'd rather campaign and nail down some good photo ops of him being thoughtful and sober as he 'listens' to those people who are having a rough time. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney mocked the whole thing as a 'magical misery tour', and he's right.

Of course, this bus tour is probably the direct result of the Obama administration to bolster his deflating approval ratings, which are at an all-time low: 39%. Shockingly, the liberal media is keeping mostly mum about that little fact (in contrast, they counted down the percentage points during George W. Bush's entire presidency), but the truth is the truth, and that's what it is.

But never trouble a liberal with facts. You know, facts like the real causes of the economic slump, and the commensurate plummet in his approval ratings. No, no, Obama is out there maintaining that the problem is essentially everything but him:

At a town hall meeting on his campaign-style tour of the Midwest, President Obama claimed that his economic program "reversed the recession" until recovery was frustrated by events overseas. And then, Obama said, with the economy in an increasingly precarious position, the recovery suffered another blow when Republicans pressed the White House for federal spending cuts in exchange for an increase in the national debt limit, resulting in a deal Obama called a "debacle."

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck." Obama listed three events overseas -- the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises -- which set the economy back.

Right. Disregard the almost trillion-dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing, disregard the almost trillion-dollar TARP (technically, he wasn't in office yet, but he was pushing hard for it as the Dem nominee) that propped up foreign banks but failed to prompt domestic banks to lend, disregard the bailouts/takeovers of hundreds of banks, insurance institutions, and car companies, disregard the multi-trillion-dollar budgets that he's pushed out, and disregard the multi-trillion-dollar Obamacare he shoved down our throats. All of these things were signed into law over the will of the American people and have poured gasoline onto the embers of the economic trouble we had, stoking a massive bonfire...but never mind all that. It was the tsunami, the Arab spring (whatever the heck that is), and Europe being irresponsible (which is ironic, considering he's implementing very European policies here...).


Here's a great example of how Obama's policies are failing right before our eyes. Take his yammering about being 'green'. One of the companies he visited a while back where he gave a rousing speech about the value of 'green' jobs is Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar, which is the third largest solar panel manufacturer in the U.S. Back in March of 2009, Obama used Evergreen as a shining example of what green jobs should be, and their latest effort was promised to provide 800 jobs in a thriving industry. Unfortunately, they're now going bankrupt. And sending their jobs overseas to China.

You see, the dirty little secret is that none of these 'green' industries can sustain themselves without massive infusions of cash from the government. Ethanol? It causes food shortages in third world countries, and more energy is required to make a gallon of ethanol than that same gallon provides in a gas tank. Wind power? It's only viable in certain small areas of the country with enough regular wind to keep 'em spinning, and even then there are gas-powered generators as backup systems (because it costs more to let them stop and start as the wind dictates). Oh, and these same liberals who insist on using wind power also refuse to have windmills sully their landscape views of the ocean, where wind power might actually be useful. Solar panels? Well, look no further than Evergreen for that story.

This is what happens when the government tries to artificially induce favored industries and technologies for political reasons. They fail. Expensively.

This is typical liberalism, and typical of the Obama administration. It's got to stop, and we've got to establish some sort of fiscal sanity before our ship of state goes completely underwater. You're not dense, and neither is the American people. Obama just thinks you are.

Cartoons by Ramirez

Catching Up

Sorry for the lack of posts lately.  I've been studying for the GMAT test over the past couple of weeks, and the last few days in particular have been full of data sufficiency problems and arcane algebraic scribbles.  Ugh.

But, that's over now, I got the score I needed, and now I can get back to something resembling normal life.  Of course, I'm going to be taking a few days off here, so regular posting won't come back quite yet.  :)

However, I wanted to leave you with just a few thoughts...

Barack Obama's approval rating is at its lowest point ever (maybe that's partly because he prefers to celebrate Muslim holidays rather than Christian ones).  Most Americans (73%) think the nation is on the wrong track.  Most Americans (63%) understand what the political class doesn't seem to get (or refuses to acknowledge): the key is to ACTUALLY  CUT SPENDING.  And finally, in case you're stressed about all the negative press about the Tea Party...more voters express more confidence in the Tea Party to understand the real problems we face and do the right thing than Congress.

The battle for the American people has been won, friends.  Now we just have to take on the idiots in Washington.

Speaking Of Downgrades

Jim Geraghty nails it in his daily email blast:

You don't see a lot of late-Friday-afternoon posts, and by Friday evening, the computer is off, the kids are running around, and dinner is in progress. Barring some developments that are impossible to ignore, such as Osama bin Laden being killed, I try to fast from news for 48 hours or so.

Boy, was this a good weekend to avoid the news.

The rumors were out by 5 p.m., but a little after 8 p.m., it was official from Standard & Poors:

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating. . . .

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. . . .

We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

That's a thoroughly depressing -- and no doubt, brutally honest -- assessment.

Naturally, the Obama administration did what it does best in response: They blamed their political opponents.

This was a "tea party downgrade," said [Obama's chief strategist David] Axelrod on CBS News' Face the Nation.

Axelrod said S&P's decision was "largely a political analysis." "And that's what we should focus on because what they were saying is they want to see the political system work. They want to see a sense of compromise. They want to see the kind of solution that the president has been fighting for, a large solution that will deal with the problem, that will be balanced, that will include revenues."

Instead, said Axelrod, conservative, Tea Party-influenced Republicans "played brinksmanship with the full faith and credit of the United States. And this was the result of that."

"It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point" he said. "And it's something that should never have happened. And that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing to see the country default, those very strident voices in the tea party."

Of course. Nothing's ever their fault.

Actually, look above at that S&P statement. It doesn't say anything about increasing revenues. In fact, in the full statement, you'll see, "Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."

It is revealing that Axelrod can look at this and declare, "They wanted to see revenues."

Doug Powers has had it:

For the first two years of Obama's presidency, the Democrats, including one John Kerry who now wants everybody to believe he's become a reborn frugalitarian, had full control of the Senate and House. At that point the Democrats could have done anything, including cutting back spending to sane levels (pause for laughter), but instead they went on a wild spending binge and presided over the largest expansion of government since World War II. . . .

Tea Party members of Congress should propose a new round of cuts to match what John Kerry says were on the table just to get to the level of responsible spending these Democrats are trying to have everybody believe they've been after all these years. It would be a nice outreach in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I like Ed Morrissey's analysis:

S&P didn't say anything yesterday that was not common knowledge and common sense. If you had to rate a potential investment that had an income of, say, $22,000 a year but had costs of $37,000 per year, a standing debt of $143,000, and contracted future debt that exceeded $1 million, would you give that investment a gold-plated AAA rating and buy their bonds at the lowest interest rate possible, or at all? Of course not, but that's exactly the fiscal situation of the US, at a 100,000,000:1 scale.

The anger is mainly misdirected. The media wants to blame the Tea Party, but the Tea Party wants to solve the actual problem -- overspending and over-commitment to entitlement programs. The Tea Party wants to blame the Obama administration, and it deserves some blame for refusing to address the real structural problems of the US fiscal condition. But that fiscal structure far predates Barack Obama, both as President and as human being, and Congresses and White Houses of both parties have done little to address the real problems in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Why? Because as soon as people try to do so, demagogues accuse them of wanting to push Grandma over a cliff. Voters respond by punishing the reformers and rewarding the demagogues.

Nonetheless, the reckoning is at hand, and we can see who sees this depressing fiscal development as another crisis to not be wasted, another opportunity to demonize the opposition. It's what they've been doing since day one.

I'm reminded of Daniel Hannan's remarks to former U.K. prime minister Gordon Brown, and can't resist paraphrasing: "Soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the downgraded president of a downgraded country."

In closely related news:

Fewer voters than ever feel the federal government has the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe the government does not have that consent. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. ...

The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed - a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence - is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

Perhaps it's no surprise voters feel this way since only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. That, too, is the lowest level measured to date. Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent.

Voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low - for the second month in a row. Only six percent (6%) now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent.

This is why I call the current crop of elected Republicans incompetent. We know that elected Democrats are doing their damnedest to remake transform destroy America in terms of the nation it was founded to be, and has been for the past 230+ years. There is enough evidence that anyone with a quarter of a working brain can see that (if they're willing). What is surprising is that there is currently no real counter to their hellbent destructive rampage.

With this kind of dissatisfaction running rampant throughout the country, it should be easy for Republicans to take the path that is both the right thing to do and the one that scores political points.

They're just not doing it.

Here's the key question: in the chaos that is sure to ensue as markets gear up post-downgrade, will anyone in Washington stand up and demand fiscal responsibility, or will we see more panic-induced save-the-world-NOW measures that will just make things worse like we've seen so often over the past two years? TARP, the stimulus, this latest debt deal...all of these have been jammed down the throats of an unwilling and unwanting American public on the premise of being the only possible thing that can avert the impending catastrophe. Of course, none of them have worked, and have only served to make a bad situation worse. Will we get more of the same from our elected 'representatives', or will they finally get real?

Yeah, I'm afraid so, too.

Funny In A Very Sad Way

The Final Final Wrap-Up Post

Okay, I'm really trying to make this the last post on the debt ceiling debate. Coverage will continue on the economy as always, of course, but I wanted to round out this particular subtopic and move on.

So, the debt deal is now law. Rather than the spending-cutting, tax increase-avoiding, save-the-economy-and-the-world measure Obama and the Democrats made it out to be, reality once again reaffirmed the conservative viewpoint: there was nothing good here.

In the two days since this passed, the stock market has plunged almost 1,000 points, 500 of which came just yesterday, the largest single-day drop since 2008, when the economic powers that be rebelled against the TARP program. This was also the ninth straight day of decline, the longest losing streak in 33 years. Fear is running rampant, and there is talk of another recession (though from the unemployment and GDP numbers, it's hard to seriously argue that the 2007 recession ever really ended). Global markets are similarly freaked out.

Oh, and remember how the essence of the deal was a debt ceiling increase now for promised spending cuts later? Well, Obama sure made short work of the increase now, spending 60% of it in one day. This has pushed America to a disastrously bad landmark: we are now borrowing a full 100% of our gross domestic product. It is for this reason -- and the fact that no one in Washington seems to have any inclination to actually reduce the reckless spending that has gotten us here -- that it is more than likely America's AAA credit rating will be reduced despite the deal passing.

Planned layoffs are on the rise. Russia is congratulating Obama on doing what it failed to do throughout the last half of the 20th century - remove America's superior defense and economic advantages. That really says something, doesn't it?

Don't trifle a liberal with fact, though - the Dems are still out there saying they've 'really turned around' the economy. Really? Well, then welcome to the Obama 'recovery':

If by 'turning around' they're referring to the fact that since 2007 they've destroyed the biggest and healthiest economy in the history of the planet, well, then I'd have to agree with them.

America has had enough, though. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans opposed the deal by a factor of 2:1. Rasmussen agrees, reporting that only 22% actually approved of it, and 58% doubt it will actually lead to genuine spending cuts down the road. Hey, Washington Republicans...what's wrong with you that you couldn't figure it out, when most of the rest of America clearly has? I don't think there's any reasonable doubt anymore that the Democrats have no problem governing against the will of the American people (they've been doing it for two and a half years solid), but it's looking more and more like the Republicans are complicit in that, too.

Rasmussen also found that -- in a continuing show of complete and utter sanity and realism -- a staggering 82% of likely American voters thinks that Obama and Congress should take a 25% pay cut until the budget is balanced. Oh, I LIKE that!!! If I had to offer one suggestion, I think we should ditch the 25% pay cut and instead drop them to an income equal to that of the median American household - $50,000 a year. I'm guessing we'd see a balanced budget amendment in days! Just my opinion. Oh, also, it's worth noting that a full 62% favor the wholesale and immediate replacement of Congress, and 63% believe that no matter how bad things get Congress can somehow make it worse. Once again, the mind boggles at how completely, utterly, incoherently inept the Republicans in Congress are to fail to see and tap into this massive discontent.

And let's not forget that one of the most recklessly dangerous provisions of the deal is a massive de-funding of the Department of Defense. In fact, it's such a drastic cut that even Obama's own Secretary of Defense is calling it 'completely unacceptable'.

And make no mistake - higher taxes are on the horizon. From what I've read and seen, here's one likely way it will play out. Because the GOP signed onto this deal and is professing there are some big spending cuts in it (which there aren't, remember!), as things continue to fall apart the Dems will start clucking their tongues and take up a new mantra: we tried it your way and it didn't work; now we have no choice but to raise taxes. Let's see how long it takes for that narrative to start flowing forth.

Anyway, in the ultimate show of class during this process, VP Joe Biden accuses those who opposed the deal of being 'terrorists'. He denies it, of course, but several Democrats who were present at the time have confirmed it. Where are the civility police when you really need them? Is Biden going to have a beer with Republicans to smooth things over? As she has become so adept at doing, Sarah Palin made hay with the comment:

"It's all talk and no real action. Otherwise he'd be on Biden and tell Biden to tone it down a little bit. Yeah, right, independent patriotic Americans who desire fiscal sanity in our beloved nation being called terrorists. Heck, Sean, if we were real domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers' apartment," Palin said on FOX News' "Hannity."

That stinging sensation you're feeling is the truth...

So, what is President Barack Obama doing in response to all of this economic mayhem and destruction?

Partying. And fundraising. It's a star-studded birthday bash, with a fabulous dinner costing $35,000 a plate (yes, you read that right) and a price tag of $10,000 for the privilege of having a picture taken with him. But out of all that nonsense, and despite all of the devastation of America that his policies have wrought, here's the part of this event that sends shivers down my spine:

Obama tries to tap into the fuzzy warmth of his "incredible journey," recalling how unusually warm it was at his Grant Park victory party back in November of 2008. And then we get to the crux of Obama's mid-2011 fundraising theme song:

The thing that we all have to remember is, is that as much good as we’ve done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said, “change we can believe in,” I didn’t say “change we can believe in tomorrow."

Remember his campaign pledge to 're-make' and 'fundamentally transform' America? Look around you at what he's already accomplished.

And then contemplate the fact that in his mind...he's not even halfway done...

Who's The Extremist?

The Decline Of Obamanomics

Yay for Obamanomics!!!  Here's Drudge at the moment:

Advertisement

DOW PLUMMETS 400 POINTS...

Gains for year erased...

Deeper than post-TARP plunge...

S&P hits 'correction' territory...

GLOBAL SELL-OFF ACCELERATES...

IT'S UGLY

Further down we see these groups of links:

DEM RUNS FROM OBAMA...

---

DEBT DEAL 'COULD ENDANGER HEALTH CARE LAW'...

BORROWING TOPS 100% OF GDP...

U.S. debt shoots up $239 billion -- in one day!

Obama, Bernanke out of ammo to boost jobs, growth...

And...

HOW MUCH LONGER?

---

Deeper Recession Looms as Unemployment Benefits Dry Up...

Jobless claims last week weren't under 400,000 for first time in 16 weeks...

Dems Issue Warning...

Anyone with half a brain and the willingness to see reality knows this is the inevitable result of Obama's policies, but we usually see it play out over the course of months, years, or decades - it's downright creepy to watch happen in the space of one or two days.

Bottom line: how's that compromise working out for you now, Republican squishes?  You keep telling yourselves that you 'had to do something' and that this was 'just the first step' if you want to.  The rest of us living out here in the real world are angry, frustrated, and completely unsurprised.  On top of that, we're befuddled at what it's going to take for you people to grow a spine and get serious about actually doing something productive and helpful rather than merely looking like you're doing something productive and helpful.

Just Open Your Eyes

I'll have a more comprehensive post on the after-effects of the so-called debt deal later, but for now, let's just look at one thing: the stock market.  If this deal was such a great thing for the country, and actually saved us from the debt ceiling armageddon that Obama and the Dems were hyping (remember, this deal would 'save life on the planet as we know it'), then why has the stock market been in free fall ever since it was signed into law?  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the current losses wipe out all gains made since January, and investors are running scared because they expect no real improvements anytime soon.

Huh.

Much, much more on the way...

Despite The Current Heat Wave...

...global warming took another serious blow recently:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The short version is that these 'alarmist computer models' used assumptions that were based more on the alarmists' political agendas rather than actual empirical data.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

And, at this point, we know for a fact that they aren't at all honest about it. Hot Air summarizes this way:

AGW advocates insist that people respect the scientific consensus that we’re all going to kill Mother Earth if we don’t take radical action now to stop emissions of a natural substance into the atmosphere. However, we don’t have consensus, and what little we do have seems less and less scientific as data emerges.

Being a little more blunt, Doug Powers says this:

In all fairness, I wouldn’t expect computer models to be spot-on simulations of the real climate system, but in honest research I would expect computer models to, at least once in a while, not always coincidentally err on the side of the equation that just happens to make Al Gore richer and serve as “evidence” that the UN should be further funded to police the impending catastrophe.

He also reports on a related story. Remember the poor, poor polar bears that are drowning because so much of their ice is melting due to global warming and they can't find anywhere to get out of the water (never mind that they can swim 60 miles at the drop of a hat)? It's political propaganda put up by someone now under investigation for misconduct:

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.”

He's claiming that he's being 'politically persecuted' by the Obama administration, but that's as laughable as the notion of polar bears dying off (remember, there are 5 times as many polar bears today as there were 50 years ago).

Oh, and it's also laughable because that very same Obama administration is continuing to push garbage policies based on Monnett's own political position, like this new gem:

In what has become a depressingly repeating pattern, if you take your eyes off of the EPA for too long they get up to all sorts of plans to “save” America. When they’re not fiddling around with vehicle mileage standards or cross-state emission regulation plans, they apparently spend their time taking a fresh look at ozone standards. They were originally set to issue some new guidelines on July 29 during the height of the debt debate, but the plan was temporarily tabled. Now, however, it’s back on the menu.

The U.S. economy won a temporary reprieve with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement last week that new ozone standards, which had been slated for this summer, will be delayed. The EPA’s “reconsideration” of the ozone standards it set in 2008 and issuance of more stringent standards violate all three of the fundamental values EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson pledged to honor: “science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”[1]

This enormously expensive regulation is unsupported by scientific evidence, violates the Clean Air Act (CAA), and appears timed to evade ongoing judicial review of the rulemaking process. Even the EPA’s estimate that the new rule will impose up to $90 billion in compliance costs annually[2] severely understates the impact on economic development and jobs in communities where attainment of the new standards will be impossible.

Back in 2008 the standard for ozone levels was set at an already challenging level of 75 ppb (parts per billion). Combined with other efforts, both regulatory and voluntary on the part of industry, air quality has been steadily improving from low points in the seventies. So why tinker with success, right?

Never ones to let a little think like that stop them, the EPA is now pushing to tighten the ozone standard to 60 ppb. (A proposal which has raised any number of eyebrows, since certain popular destinations fail to meet that standard today, including Yellowstone National Park.) But this will at least improve everyone’s health, right? According to a new study from NERA Economic Consulting, the health benefits are “greatly exaggerated” at best.

EPA’s assumed causal relationship between ozone and mortality has not been supported by EPA’s science advisors;

The health benefits EPA attributes to the tighter ozone standard should are due to a slight reduction in particulate matter (dust), which already is regulated separately by EPA; and

The EPA’s own data show that the benefits of the proposed ozone standard will not outweigh the costs.

But there must be some upside to this, right? We’re all supposed to focus on jobs now, as I recall. Hopefully this will at least help us out on that front!

Oh, it’s going to have an effect, alright. A study by Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that strengthening the ozone standard to 60 ppb could cost the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion per year between 2020 and 2030, and destroy 7.3 million jobs.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled banging of your heads against the wall.

The longer these people remain in charge of American policy, the more damage they do...and for all the wrong reasons.

For What It's Worth...

...here's a brief reminder of apparent priorities:

From CNSNews.com (via BigPeace, emphasis mine):

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama on Monday issued a statement marking the start of Ramadan, the month devoted to prayer and fasting in the Muslim religion.

"As Ramadan begins, Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to Muslim communities in the United States and around the world," the statement reads. "Ramadan is a festive time that is anticipated for months by Muslims everywhere."

Obama did not issue a statement marking Easter this year [...]

A review of presidential statements documented at whitehouse.gov indicates that Obama has apparently not issued a statement specifically about Easter since taking office in January 2009.

Obama issued Ramadan message and hosted a special Ramadan White House dinner in 2009 and 2010.

Draw your own conclusions (you Islamophile racist you!!!).

Standard Operating Procedure

Divorce Agreement

A friend of mine forwarded this to me, and I had to post it.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and bio diesel.

--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, home boys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

--We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McLane. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

--You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors.

--We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right.

--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

--We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

If only...

Cyberattacks

Unfortunately, it looks like I'm going to have to do at least one more post on the debt battle as all the final details wrap up. For now, let's hit a mostly unrelated subject - cyberattacks.

Many people may not have caught it, but about a year ago there was a momentary flap about a brand new computer virus called Stuxnet. Here's a cool video that explains what it was, what it did, and why it was a watershed moment in security circles:

Wow. This is, in a word, incredible. And scary. For a fascinating in-depth read about the whole thing and how it was unraveled, go here.

Stuxnet essentially paralyzed Iran's nuclear facility for a while, though they wouldn't admit it. It appears the U.S. was involved in some capacity, though Defense officials never really admitted as much.

Personally, I hope it was us, at least in part. With all of the recent reports of China's increasingly aggressive attacks and aspirations on U.S. national cybersecurity, it would be nice to know we can still pull off something this gutsy and slick. Since Stuxnet was open-sourced and released to the Internet, though, this could work both ways, and U.S. officials have already expressed concern over the possibility of a Stuxnet-like attack on us. This is probably why they have also announced that any such cyberattack would be considered an act of war, with possible reprisals including military hardware (the actual exploding kind). This is one policy on which I find myself heartily agreeing with the Obama administration (though I'm very skeptical they would actually pull the trigger if we were attacked through cyberspace, but I suppose you have to start somewhere, right?).

A few months ago, there were rumors of a second Stuxnet-like attack (called the Stars virus) on Iran's facilities, though the details of that one are much less clear. Regardless, it's safe to assume that we are living in the age of cyberattacks, and it is very possible that the next major terrorist attack may involve nothing more than malicious code. But, as Stuxnet proves, malicious code can be devastating.

And here's where we bring things full circle. Would you or would not agree that this is a critical piece of national security? Would it make you feel better to know that the U.S. is fully committed to not only staving off potential attacks against us, but also fully engaged in staying as far ahead of our enemies as possible?

Then ask yourself this: why is Congress congratulating itself on passing a debt default avoidance deal that includes the active gutting of the Defense Department budget?

The deal promises to raise the debt ceiling by the highest amount ever—more than $2 trillion—while reducing spending by close to $1 trillion over the next decade. It envisions 6 percent and 7.5 percent cuts in defense spending from the President’s budget request in February for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, respectively.

How do you feel about picking up the phone and making a couple calls to your representative now?

I Call Bull

I used to think my Rep, Sam Graves, was 'one of the good ones'. He's a solid, down-the-line conservative, and he seems to genuinely attempt to keep what's best for his constituents in front of him. However, he was not one of the 22 who voted against this sham deal. Many Reps who I had previously thought were solid, down-the-line conservatives weren't. In my inbox this morning I found this message waiting for me:

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 to reduce spending by $917 billion and increase the debt ceiling by $900 billion. In addition, the bill would create a commission to identify a further $1.6 trillion in savings by the end of this year and require both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment.

My vote was a down-payment on the tough choices that must be made to get our spending under control in the months and years ahead. I would rather the Senate and President had agreed with our plan to cut, cap and balance our budget. However, they did not and compromise was necessary.

This bill is not perfect. However it is a necessary first step. These are meaningful and serious changes to the spending status quo. The spending habits of Washington for the last five decades have finally caught up with us.

International credit ratings agencies warn us that they will downgrade our triple-A bond status if we do not act to address our spending. That move would cause a negative ripple effect on anyone who needs a loan, has an investment or is looking for a job.

Similarly, I do not believe that a default on our debt would be good for an economy that is already struggling to create jobs. America should pay its debts. However we cannot simply raise the debt ceiling and postpone the tough choices that need to be made any longer.

The House has now passed two different plans to end this crisis. It is time for the Senate and President to join us in safeguarding our economy and to begin making the tough choices necessary to return our country to a fiscally responsible course.

I call bull.

He's parroting the same tripe that Boehner's been saying, and it's a hollow argument at best. You know what I think? I think he knows he's going against his constituents here, and is trying to pre-empt some of the furious phone calls he's bound to get today (one of which will be from me). He went along to save Boehner's butt and so he can say he helped pass a solution, but quite frankly, I'm done with Republicans who go squishy like this when it counts most and resort to half-measures that no one with any understanding or credibility in politics or economics thinks will accomplish meaningful results.

Let's review.

1. The debt ceiling increase is the full $2.5 trillion immediately.
2. Our credit rating will more than likely be downgraded anyway because they focus on spending rather than debt, and this is no meaningful change in spending.
3. As a result of the efforts of dozens of debt reduction commissions over the past 30 years, America's national debt has been reduce from $1 trillion to $14 trillion. Nice work.
4. America would never default on its debts. If crunch time came, the President would decide which bills got paid first, and no President would stamp his name all over the first default in American history.
5. Compromise wasn't necessary. These days, compromise only makes things worse.
6. These aren't spending cuts, they're tiny little reductions in the rate of growth of government. The national debt will be trillions of dollars higher in 10 years even if these cuts materialize. Which they won't.

If we're being real, we can count on two things. First is that Democrats will do anything and everything they can to further their radical Leftist/Socialist/Marxist agenda, which is pretty much the worst possible thing for both individual liberty and a healthy American economy. Second is that Republicans are full of hot gaseous emanations, and can be counted upon to stand up for the right thing clear up until the point at which it matters most, and then they will cave like the spineless cowards they are.

There's a reason Congress currently has a 6% approval rating, and this is it.

Post-Mortem

I hate the final deal, but GOOD LORD I'm supremely glad we can get on with other things!

Yes, a deal is done. I won't bore you with all the stupid theatrics of the final back-and-forth, but the point is that the 'crisis' has been averted, at least for now. Here's a nutshell of the deal:

The agreement would slice at least $2.2 trillion from federal spending over a decade, a steep price for many Democrats, too little for many Republicans. The Treasury's authority to borrow would be extended beyond the 2012 elections, a key objective for Obama, though the president had to give up his insistence on raising taxes on wealthy Americans to reduce deficits.

Here are a few final (I hope) points to convey, and then we'll hit some other stuff.

Liars and the Lies They Lie About

LIE #1: THE BOEHNER PLAN CONTAINS “NO NEW TAXES”

This was untrue with respect to Boehner 3.0 -– the version which passed the House –- and it’s untrue with respect to Boehner 7.0 –- the new “compromise” which emerged Sunday afternoon.

The potential tax increase resulting from Boehner (or the “compromise” which has emerged as a result of passing Boehner) will certainly be enormous and unfilibusterable, even though it is deliberately concealed from us now.

It will be hatched by a 7-man majority of a 12-man commission which will consist of six Pelosi/Reid Democrats and one frightened Republican. (Reid and Pelosi will not call it a “commission” for the same reason Satan doesn’t like the word “sin.”)

The commission will be prodded into action by a “trigger” –- probably across-the-board cuts which slash Medicare and defense in ways which won’t conceivably be allowed to go into effect.

The big tax increase will be unveiled using all the shibboleths (“millionaires and billionaires,” private jets, etc.). And, under the rules, Jim DeMint and Rand Paul will not be able to filibuster or amend it. The Jeff Flakes will, by that point, realize the folly they allowed to go forward. But their votes won’t be needed. In that hour, the Democrats will provide the needed votes.

And the only real alternative to a tax increase? Repealing the mechanism and raising the debt limit for a second tranche without any deficit reduction.

So, the message to Boehner-supporting House conservatives? Suckers!!!

Hit the link to check out the other big lies (significant spending cuts, action on a balanced budget amendment, obtaining victory, and being on the verge of default). Bottom line: these people suck raw eggs, and are lying like a knock-off Persian rug.

Here's the dirty little secret: Moody's has already said that none of the plans being kicked around will avert a downgrade of the U.S.'s AAA credit rating. As we've been discussing, this is because the credit rating is based on spending habits rather than debt levels. Since none of these deals really made a significant change in the reckless spending coming out of Washington, a downgrade is still more or less assured.

Two final thoughts, first from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Back in 1994, Rush Limbaugh wrote See I Told You So. From page 88 of the book:

[T]he cure for: a) the budget deficit = more taxes; b) unemployment = more taxes; c) recession = more taxes; d) environmental problems = more taxes; e) illiteracy = more taxes; f) L.A. riots = more taxes. It doesn’t matter what the nature of the problem is.

This week, whether you listened to Rush, Sean, Mark, or even me filling in for Boortz, we’ve been telling you so. This whole farce in Washington is a way to get more tax revenue from you and despite public pronouncements from the Republicans that they were holding the line on tax revenue they were either (A) complicit behind the scenes or (B) going to get played.

We were right.

What we know about the pending deal is that the Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to a Deficit Commission. Despite the media spin — and the spin of some Republican sycophants — the deficit commission, which will be a super committee of the Congress, will have the power to come up with new tax revenue.

And if the Congress rejects the Commission’s demands for new tax revenue, there will be a trigger that cuts both medicare funding and defense funding.

Except, the defense funding cuts will be much more massive than the medicare cuts. And the GOP, in addition to seeing defense cut, would be hacking off seniors right before an election.

In other words, Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election. Oh, and the medicare cuts technically wouldn’t come from beneficiaries, but from providers. Those same providers who’ll just stop taking medicare patients.

It’s not that the GOP got played so much as GOP leaders were collaborating on this. Boehner wanted a grand bargain and now he’s going to get it along with tax increases.

It boggles the mind how these Republicans are either so stupid they can't figure out that they just bent over for the Democrats again, or that they genuinely seem to think that the American people are so stupid that we don't know what they've done. I simply can't believe that they've deliberately flushed so much leverage -- not to mention their so-called principles -- down the toilet. They're going to have some explaining to do to a livid and rebelling base.

The real problem here is what will happen when the Tea Partiers and true conservatives chuck the Republican establishment. If that fracture occurs, and doesn't heal by the time the election comes around, Obama will manage to squeak out a victory and win himself another four years.

But time will tell on that. My final thought is this video from Americans for Prosperity that really says it all: