Words. Just words.

At this afternoon’s press conference, President Obama, sans teleprompter, all but admitted his ousted Democrat colleagues who voted for ObamaCare have no scruples. Following a question from Jake Tapper, Obama responded:

“And what they’ve told me is, you know, ‘We don’t have regrets because [we] feel like we were doing the right thing.’ And they may be just saying that to make me feel better, which, again, is a sign of their character and class.’”

Yep. So much integrity that President Obama recognized Democrats lied to his face and the American people, and in fact did not want to vote for ObamaCare, but voted for it anyway. And all just to make Obama feel better. I can’t imagine a better example of unicorn character than that.

Now that’s audacious.

As long as Congressman Clyburn is casting aspersions, making baseless accusations, and touting conspiracy theories, maybe what really happened was that Democrat operatives tried to wreck havoc with the Republican primary and it backfired? Thus, with Democrat votes being frittered away in the Republican primary, what’s his name who came in 2nd in the Democrat primary did not receive the votes he would have received otherwise.

And if Republicans really did sabotage the Democrat primary, that means the Democrats had an incredibly low voter turnout. …Maybe a record low turnout? That does not bode well for you in November.

In the South Carolina governor’s race, Sheheen won with 58% of the vote. Polling had Sheheen at 59%. That’s incredible coordination among the 99,970 who voted for Greene. RealClearPolitics combined final polls had Sheheen at 59%, Rex at 23%, and Ford at 18%. The actual results?: Sheheen 58%, Rex 23%, and Ford 18%. (Karl Rove messed up! He was supposed to get Sheheen to 59%.)

As 2008 was a Presidential primary year, let’s also compare the 2006 and 2010 South Carolina primaries. Of the 432,065 Democrat and Republican ballots cast in 2006, 33.8% were Democrat ballots. Of the 622,273 Democrat and Republican ballots cast in 2010, 31.7% of total ballots cast were Democrat ballots.

When you speak before you have the facts, you miscalibrate your words. Way to lead the way, Mr. President.

*

In 2006, 146,062 people voted in the Democrat primary, and 2,408,258 people were registered with the Democrat party in South Carolina. Assuming only Democrats voted in the Democrat primary, there was a 6.0% voter turnout among Democrats in South Carolina.

In 2006 277,003 people voted in the Republican primary in South Carolina, and 2,408,258 people were registered with the Republican party in South Carolina. Assuming only registered Republicans voted in the Republican primary, there was a 11.5% voter turnout among Republicans in South Carolina.

In 2010, 197,380 Democrat ballots were cast, and 424,893 Republican ballots were cast. (Further breakdowns not yet available.)

Nick Clegg’s rise to prominence is eerily similar that of the empty suit Obama, with Clegg copying Obama literally in deed and in word. All talk, no substance. But the U.K. is swooning.

Like our Dear Leader, Clegg’s dossier-version of the teleprompter tells him exactly what do. Except I bet he wishes his aide put it in his pocket and walked to the hotel, thus saving him a carbon footprint. Instead, it was left in a cab for all to see.

Transparency is a beautiful thing. Hopefully the Brits will see the truth before it’s too late.

*Disclaimer: Almost all people who are out of work are unemployed through no fault of their own. I have great sympathy for you and understand the worries you have for the well-being of your families and wish you God’s blessings.

H/T to Haystack for his excellent diary on free markets. This post started out as a comment to your diary,  but (I believe) addresses a separate issue.

Mr. President, you’re not helping. The proposed jobs bill is another Cash for Clunkers disaster in the making and will hurt the economy rather than help it.

If a business does my neighbor and his family a favor by advising they will have to lay him off in 60 days, it may actually be better economically for him to lose today the job he loves and is good at (rather than through the grace of God retaining his current job for a few more months). That way, that same company (or a different one) would be more likely to hire him in the future.

One of the proposals being floated around the Hill and the business community is to provide tax credits to businesses that hire individuals who have been unemployed for over 60 days. But if incentives are to be given, they need to be given across the board. Otherwise, the “unanticipated” consequences created by these tax credits will cause more problems than they solve.

In difficult economic times, businesses often have to lay off high-salaried employees as well as entry-level positions. Although definitely not the rule, “more qualified” individuals are usually the last to be laid off. The free-market again will be turned on its head, however, if tax credits are only granted to businesses that hire individuals who were the “first” to be laid off.

For instance, what if you’ve been out of a job for 2 weeks (and like all of us, desperately need a new job?) If you are the “more qualified” applicant, you will still be less likely to be hired (as a business will receive a tax credit for hiring a “less” qualified individual who’s been unemployed for over 60 days). With a limited amount of capital in the private sector and an uncertain future, you could be out of work for a longer period of time than the person who is hired. In another scenario, a company would have a tax incentive to lay you off and then turn around and hire someone else to fill your exact same position on the very same day.

And that’s just addressing those who have been out of work. What about the person who wasn’t looking for work-and is therefore not considered “unemployed,” who may have just graduated from high school or college, been recently widowed or divorced, or was providing long-term care to an aged or sick family member? They need a job just as much as the other guy, but in effect will be penalized.

Having Obama as the CEO of the USG, major U.S. car companies, and banks is bad enough, but I sure don’t want him running (and ruining) the private sector as well.

*Another question: Will individuals who have been unemployed for more than 60 days be required to have accepted unemployment insurance in order to “prove” they are unemployed?

After describing some challenging times in America’s history, Obama completely misrepresented the unemployment rate under Bush when he stated:

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. (emphasis added)

Lie #1 came right off the bat during BO’s SOTU — and his transparent lie made me furious. The unemployment rate is not still 10%. Dec. 2008 unemployment was 7.2% (released beginning of Jan 2009). Jan. 2009 unemployment was 7.6% (released Feb. 2010).

By stringing a few immodest sentences between January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2010, Obama obfuscated his own failures and simultaneously misrepresented Bush’s accomplishments. Here’s the fuller text:

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted — immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. …

Hey, “52.” Get you numbers straight. In the last year, the unemployment rate has not stayed unchanged. Rather, thanks to your policies, it has risen by at least 2.4%. And no, the devastation does not remain. It has only just begun. And there will be three more years of it.

UPDATE: The original DailyKos video link had the WTC stock photo. The updated video link replaced the WTC photo.

I went to see what the KosKids’ latest complaints were and found this diary by a front pager regarding Scott Brown’s connections to the evillll Wall Street, which also included a link to the latest DSCC video. The kosiacs don’t realize it, but the video used a WTC stock photo.

Helpfully, the first commenter noticed the original video had been removed and provided a working link.

I read the comments section and found no one mentioned and/or knew the real reason why the video (paid for by the DSCC) had been removed. One person even posited on the real reason the first video posted by diarest was removed: “[A]utomatically, I imagine a Republican has had something to do with this….tampering thieves that they are.”

One reason they may have missed this is because they are Charlie Gibson-type drones and never listen to anyone except themselves and the MSM. I bet they wish they had NeoKong around to let them know about the latest Coakley gaffe they are perpetuating.

The DSCC and Daily Kos have proved again they are no less of an idiot than Coakley herself.

Obama e-mailed it in. In his e-mail message of support for Coakely, he (or maybe it was TOTUS) wrote this:

The outcome of this race couldn’t be more important. To help Americans get back to work, jump-start a clean-energy economy, and put a stop to abuses on Wall Street that place us at risk, I need every ally possible in the Senate.

You’ve worked so hard to organize around these and so many other critical issues. And now we’re so close to passing health reform — finally realizing Senator Kennedy’s life’s work. But we cannot get the job done without Martha Coakley in the Senate. …

The stakes are high. Time is short. And your role is essential.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/11/2170769.aspx

By acknowledging that heath care “reform” cannot pass without the election of Coakley to the Senate, the President is admitting that if Brown wins, the bill is killed–and that delay tactics to prevent Brown’s swearing-in cannot and/or will not work.

The former ConLaw professor finally got one right.

On November 28, 2007, the official BarackObama.com website (not the my.barackobama.com version) touted Obama’s promise to have the health care negotiations televised on C-SPAN. At that time, his promise had not yet reached its expiration date. Although Obama made his C-SPAN promise at least eight times on the pre-presidency campaign trail, I couldn’t find any of his seven other C-SPAN promises on his website that covered his every hallowed/hollowed word.

As far back as February 13th, Gibbs made light of the whole C-SPAN thing. At that time, the MSM laughed along with him and didn’t bother asking a follow-up question. It was evident even then that the White House had no intention of allowing C-SPAN access to any meeting of substance. As for one of the talking points, If the White House thinks hardly anyone watches C-SPAN anyway and it wouldn’t make a difference as we’ve heard all the arguments already, why don’t they just go ahead and let the film roll?

On March 5th, the White House prominently highlighted on the first page, second paragraph of its press release Obama’s commitment to transparency and promise to have the health care negotiations on C-SPAN (see page 45). The previous day, March 4th, Gibbs emphasized: “And the event will be streamed on the web and broadcast on C-SPAN, as the President promised many times during the campaign” (emphasis added)

On July 22, Christi Parsons asked President Obama a question in prime-time about televising health care negotiations on C-SPAN, to which the president stated he’d “welcome it.” The fact that Obama said this after the March 5th dog and pony show demonstrated that he was referring to future negotiations. In Obama’s stead, Gibbs has considered the C-SPAN question decidedly unwelcome. Meanwhile, it’s now been nearly six months since His Eloquency Who is Running Scared has taken questions from a reporter who was not handpicked by the administration to throw softballs.

On July 27th, Ed Henry attempted to ask Gibbs about televising the negotiations, but again, Gibbs laughed it off. On October 19th and 26th the press tried once more, but Gibbs continued to deflect the question.

It is all so perfectly clear: Gibbs continues to run interference for his opaque, but empty suit boss. But in reference to the big cheese himself, (and not the health care negotiations), we can move along as there truly is nothing to see.

Thank you for your historic and unprecedented transparency, Mr. President.

Will you please calibrate and make perfectly clear for us lowly Joes what we should do with our dictionaries? And yes, you did say that during your interview with Chuck Todd about trying KSM in a civilian court. The only difference between you, Eric Holder, and Robert Gibbs is that you use a teleprompter every chance you get (and for good reason).

What is a tax?

Obama: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

What does: “[N]one of the funds…may be provided to ACORN” mean?

Holder: In accord with established interpretive principles for resolving such lack of clarity, we conclude that section 163 does not direct or authorize HUD to refuse payment on binding contractual obligations that predate the Continuing Appropriations Resolution.

  

To be sure, some common definitions of “provide,” such as “supply” or “furnish,” American Heritage Dictionary 1411 (4th ed. 2006), would appear to describe any transfer of funds, presumably including a transfer in satisfaction of an existing obligation. Other definitions, however, connote a discretionary action. For instance, “provide” may mean “contribute,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1994 (2d ed. 1958), or “make available,” American Heritage Dictionary 1411 (4th ed. 2006), and “offer” is among its synonyms, Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus 780 (3d ed. 1995). And in common parlance, the verb “provide” frequently describes discretionary action taken to benefit another. Moreover, several of the word’s definitions incorporate a forward-looking aspect, see, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 1994 (2d ed. 1958) (“to look out for in advance”; “to prepare”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1224 (6th ed. 1990) (“[t]o make, procure, or furnish for future use, prepare”), consistent with the etymology of “provide,” which derives from the Latin providere, meaning to see before, foresee, or be cautious, 12 Oxford English Dictionary 713 (2d ed. 1989). Definitions of the word “expend,” we note, do not carry a similarly discretionary or forward-looking connotation, in keeping with the etymology of that word, which comes from the Latin expendere, meaning simply to pay or weigh. 5 id. at 561.

 

Against this background, we find that the relevant text of section 163 is not clear with respect to the precise question before us.

The NFL has put on a fine display of New Age leadership in the era of Obama. Truth is irrelevant; the new great moral standard is whether facts are “divisive.” Rush offered a compelling analysis of human relations and motives. Rather than addressing the issues he presented, the NFL dropped out of the debate. Nations, businesses, religions, and individuals that willingly choose to ignore problems because doing so will understandably create discomfort are destined to fail.

By the NFL’s own explicit admission, Rush was barred admission into their club not because his ideas were not grounded in facts, but because his ideas were revolutionary and “divisive.” Excellence in broadcasting and life comes from a willingness to make needed changes. The opt-out version, however, does no one any favors as eventually the day of reckoning comes.

The former community organizer continues to vote present rather than lead. During the campaign Obama and his liberal friends (minus Cindy Sheehan) proclaimed Afghanistan as the “good war.” A full year after Senator Obama was named chairman of the subcommittee on Europe, then-Senator and now-Secretary of State Clinton saw right through Obama’s opaqueness. Minus his binky, Obama proceeded to stumble into an explicit admission he was guilty as charged.

Senator Clinton: …I have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan…

Senator Obama: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

-Democratic debate, Feb. 26, 2008

As Senator: Chaired zero substantive subcommittee meetings regarding Afghanistan.

As Senator (July 2008): Promises that as President the fight against “Al Qaeda and the Taliban” will be a top priority.

As Senator (During the first Presidential debate): Touted his relentless call for more troops in Afghanistan.

As President (March 2009): Introduced a new strategy for success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As President (August 2009): Speaking with a teleprompter before the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference, Obama asserted that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity”. 

As President (Pre 60 Minutes revelations): One meeting with General McChrystal in 70 days.

As President (Post 60 Minutes/Pre Olympic Flameout): One hastily arranged 25 minute meeting on the Tarmac aboard Air Force One.

As President (Post Posturing): Introduced his latest strategy for Afghanistan.

Conclusion: Cindy Sheehan has more credibility and leadership skills than our President and the U.N. combined. Obama needs to step it up if he wants to be just like Cindy, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. As it is, he’s just like Carter. Any claim by Obama that he’s actively gathering information and merely engaged in a listening tour is an insincere lie, as the generals on the ground have already communicated what it will take for America to win in Afghanistan.  

Thank you to our troops serving in Afghanistan and around the world. Our thoughts and prayers, and (hopefully) Commander-in-Chief and Congress are with you.

To enraged Obama supporters and liberal politicians who respond to Sarah Palin and other fishy e-mailers by screaming: “But that’s not in the bill! That’s not in the bill!” let me grant your argument for the time being. Your disgust with Sarah Palin’s comments indicates that you actually agree with her.

Like many (such as Bob Beckle) who blow a gasket when defending Obama against emphatic assertions that the President supports infanticide, you seem to be saying but hey, if Sarah Palin’s description of the health care bill is accurate and/or if pro-lifers’ characterization of Obama supporting infanticide is accurate, then of course the labeling of these policies as evil would indeed be justified.

If the proposed health care bill is based on a subjective (or objective) judgment of an individual’s “level of productivity in society,” and senior citizens, a fetus, or a baby with Down Syndrome would have to stand in front of a “death panel” of bureaucrats, that policy would indeed be evil. Likewise, if Obama did vote against a bill that would outlaw infanticide, that individual who voted against such a bill would indeed be evil.

At my town hall meeting, I plan to ask my member of Congress: “I understand you believe end of life issues will rest solely with the patient and not with an appointed Czar. Hypothetically, if you should learn this is in fact not the case, would you then vote “no” on this bill?”

P.S., By the way, Sarah Palin is of course correct. These abominable provisions are in HR 3200. However, I’d only point this out to my member of Congress the day after the town hall meeting if he responds in the affirmative to my question. Otherwise, it’s obvious the truth or falseness of Sarah Palin’s statement is irrelevant to them.

http://www.bdfund.org/obamacare.asp

By the way, Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren certainly has no qualms about HR 3200.

H/T to Caleb’s most recent post, in which he coined a new word — literally!

No doubt out of fear of being seen as a “sell-out” by his kostituency, Olbermann…

In honor of Caleb, we need to further define what a “kostituency” consists of.

The stupid dictionary seems to be the ideal vehicle for doing so.

http://stupidictionary.com/kostituency

“The report, I believe, will be concluded at some point this week. We’ll release its findings and release a photo,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said during his daily press briefing.

So the generous one will now let us see “a” (i.e., one) photo of the New York City flyover? I wonder what it will show?

Meanwhile, more Abu Ghraib photos will be released, along with selective interrogation memos hand-picked by the Obama administration.

What’s transparent is that something’s going on the White House doesn’t want us to know about. Why not release all the photos? Releasing only one photo is worse than not releasing any. Do they think we’re that stupid?

When I saw this headline I thought it was an Onion-type April Fool’s Day story. Unfortunately, after clicking on the link I learned it’s not.

The “one” is a joke.

Historic? Absolutely! For the first time in our Republic’s history, the American people have elected a president who is not just a fetus killer, but a live baby killer as well. (And a Marxist on top of that.)

I can tolerate inept tax policies and even wanting to pull out of Iraq, but Obama’s disrespect for life is beyond the pale. That audio Erick posted of Obama arguing the indefensible was chilling. To me, Obama will always be known as the infanticide president. Here’s a “congratulatory letter” from today’s Washington Post Inauguration edition:

The Times They Are a Changin’

Our Dear Leader-Welcome home.
Please know the miraculous feat
and pride your presidency brings to
us deserves the highest recognition.
Thanks to eloquent leadership and
because of the values you hold dear,
hands of the old tremble with joy and
newborn babes are tossed proudly in
the air, dressed in the most exquisite
linen. Closets, which were locked
because of necessity, proudly open
without shame. We call this infant I
adore America. Equal, free, side by
side. May God bless her ever more.

Talitha Christiansen