Category Archives: Barack Obama

I, Obama

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Debt, Ethics, Etiquette, Foreign Policy

My reference in the title is to “I, Claudius,” an “award-winning television serial, based on a book about the Roman Emperor Claudius.”

Jim Kouri of the Examiner.com talks about President Obama and First Lady Michelle’s four-day trip to India:

“The U.S. will spend upwards of $200 million per day on President Barack Obama’s visit to Mumbai. Based on the projection that he’ll stay in India for four days, American taxpayers will be paying close to $1 billion so that the President and his entourage of close to 1,500 people will enjoy first-class accommodations
The huge amount of around $200 million will be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” a top official of the Indian government told the BBC.
The people accompanying the Obamas include Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists favorable to the Obama White House.
Even Indian government officials aren’t certain what what will be accomplished during the Obama visit.”

It appears that this trip is the First Lady’s ostentatious sojourn to Spain on steroids. Somewhere in the US, productive activities are being suspended in order to fund the POTUS, the FLOTUS and their lavish lives. Remember though, that this outlay is nothing as compared to the cost of the legislation He devises. In fact, a $1 billion ransom would be a good deal if we could ensure that He never signed another bill into law, except to nullify what went before.

One Twisted Brother

Barack Obama, Critique, Elections, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

Dana Bash, a CNN reporter who is never bashful about covering the president favorably, cringed when forced to deliver John Boehner’s rapid response to Barack Obama’s “enemies” quip. Recall that “during an interview last Monday on the Spanish-language radio station,” Mr. Obama tried to galvanize Latinos by referring to his opposition as “our enemies” who need punishing.

Posted only much later in the day on CNN (@8:01 PM ET), and only after the Obambi-issued mea culpa had already gone up on the network’s website, here is the House Minority Leader’s rather good response to that twisted brother:

“Mr. President, there’s a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution and the values of limited government that made our country great,” Mr. Boehner is set to tell an audience in Cincinnati tonight. “We don’t call them ‘enemies.’ We call them patriots. … “We have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies,’” Mr. Boehner’s speech says. “Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators – enemies of the United States.”

Sadly, we have [a] president who used the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans…fellow citizens,” the speech continues. “He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda for bigger government…people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government.

Obama's "Spendership" (Vs. British Stewardship?)

Barack Obama, Britain, Bush, Debt, The State

“Obama spending stimulates the national debt by $3,039,000,000,000,” blares Andrew Malcolm’s headline in the Los Angeles Times.

The information comes courtesy of “Mark Knoller of CBS News, who is the White House press corps’ chief cruncher of all things numbers.”

“national debt has increased by $3,039,000,000,000, as in, that much more than it was when he took the oath on Jan. 20, 2009, in front of millions of excited witnesses and Aretha Franklin’s huge hat.

“Obama prefers to lay the blame or credit for this gargantuan spending increase at the cowboy-booted feet of his Lone Star Republican predecessor,” writes Malcolm. “During George W. Bush’s Oval Office tenure, the national debt increased more — by $4.9 trillion, in fact.”

“However, Bush took 96 months to do that.”

“Obama has accomplished his spending feat in less than 21 months. Under his spendership the national debt has grown about $4.8 billion every day since he took the oath of office twice, just to be safe.”

[SNIP]

The problem is that no one who follows him will be able to reverse this. How do you turn this around? You can’t, given that the interest alone on such stratospheric debt is insurmountable. There is no returning America to a place of financial safety.

Putting up a pretense means, at the very least, doing what David Cameron is attempting in the UK.

Incidentally, can you imagine how apoplectic National Review (with the exception of the two non-neocons on staff) would become if BHO “announced plans to cut its military personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army’s artillery and tanks, withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years, and cut 25,000 civilian jobs in its Defense Ministry”?

UPDATE (Oct. 20): British Stewardship? To listen to Daniel Hannan—English politician, commentator on all things American—the US is not as deep in trouble as the UK. Understandably, a rabid rah-rah for America comes with being a Fox News expert.

Yes we have fabulous founding documents and principles, but these have been flouted for at least a century. According to the facts mentioned in “Statism Starts With YOU!”, most Americans adore “Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — which combined, account for close to half of the federal government’s budget.” And “only 7 percent of the country will consider slashing the first two welfare programs; a mere eleven percent of those living in the ‘Land of the Free’ are prepared to pare down Medicaid.” (One Tea Party slogan read: “Keep the government out of my Medicare!”)

I cannot comment with any degree of authority whether there are differences in attitudes to entitlements between us and our cousins across the pond.

One thing is indisputable: Unlike in the UK, successive American governments—and the governing class—have been unique in working against the economic interests of their countrymen and their country. (Treason?)

BBC News: “Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.”

A “19% average cuts to departmental budgets,” as well cutting “higher education spending by 40%, flood defences by 15% and sport England and UK Sport by 30%”—this is better than increasing spending as we are. Of course, price controls, such as on rail fares, are being tinkered with, namely “allowed to increase by 3% above RPI inflation from 2012.”

No doubt, certain cuts are an illusion, to be replaced by other, slightly modified programs. But again: better to fire 500,000 state workers than to hire 1.4 million census stalkers.

UPDATED: A Vote For Chile’s President

America, Barack Obama, Bush, Free Markets, Government, Media, Technology, Trade

The following is from “A Vote For Chile’s President,” my latest WND column:

“President Barack Obama took to the podium well before President Sebastian Piñera did. Chile’s president bided his time patiently with the group of rescue workers in hard hats, until all 33 miners had surfaced from deep within the San José copper-gold mine, in northern Chile, where they had been entombed for 69 days.

If not for the translator’s running commentary, I would not have guessed that the man with a beaming smile—so different from Obama’s gleam of dentition and Bush’s demented grin—last in-line to meet and greet the miners who ascended from hell, was no other than Chile’s president. Sebastian Piñera wife, first lady Cecilia Morel, was equally low-key, fading into the background and ceding to the heroes of the unfolding drama.

The images transmitted from Camp Esperanz showed no swat teams, personal body guards, or retinues of handlers and props—the sort of ‘presidential comitatus’ that accompanies the head of the American hyperpower everywhere.

At ‘Camp Hope,’ the pensive group of rescuers and their president looked like a band of brothers. The media scrum did nothing to shatter what was almost a religious atmosphere. All present—mining men, the rescued and the rescuers, and their families—seemed oblivious to the din from the outside world. Nobody appeared star-struck; few were playing to the cameras. All present had eyes for one another alone. Expressions of joy were all the more poignant because so dignified. There was no slobbering, no Geraldo-Rivera hyperbole.” …

The compete column, now on WND.COM, is “A Vote For Chile’s President.”

Next week I hope to introduce you to the work of a dear friend, Professor Dennis O’Keeffe, who has just written a gem of a book about Edmund Burke. My conversation with Dennis will be the first of a two-part interview. You’ll enjoy it.

And do read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Oct. 16): Star Parker in “What Chile can teach America about freedom”:

But back just a little less than 40 years ago, Chile was a typical, poor South American nation, with intrusive government and sluggish growth.
How was it transformed?
Read a short essay called “How the Power of Ideas Can Transform a Country,” by one of the leaders that made it happen – Jose Pinera.
He relates how, in the mid-1950s, the Catholic University of Chile signed a cooperation agreement with the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago, then home to the world’s top free-market economists, including the legendary Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman’s classic “Capitalism and Freedom” explains how individual liberty can only thrive when accompanied by economic liberty
Thus began the education of a generation of young Chileans in the wisdom of economic freedom.
Beginning in the late 1970s, these young leaders, with newly minted Ph.D.s, helped implement new economic reforms in Chile protecting private property and promoting free trade.
A graph showing annual economic growth in Chile over the last hundred years looks like a hockey stick. From the early part of the twentieth century until 1980, the line is flat, averaging less than 1 percent growth per year. But beginning 1980, growth takes off in a vertical surge, averaging over 4 percent per year.