Obama and transparency

Remember when Obama promised his would be the most transparent administration in history? This declaration, one of so many that have failed to materialize, is a joke. Consider Fast and Furious . . . Today it's Benghazi. Another reason to vote this man out next week.

Obama's foreign-policy failures

So far I've done nine blogs based on Hugh Hewitt's powerful book called The Brief against Obama. They all dealt with Pres. Obama's terrible domestic policy failures. Let's move to some of his foreign-policy failures now.

Hewitt first explores the President's poor handling of the Iranian uprising. In 2009 Iran conducted an election for its president. The results were a joke, with the dangerous fanatic Ahmadinejad declared the overwhelming victor. Demonstrations and riots broke out almost immediately in the streets of Iran. World leaders condemned the fraud. In stark contrast, President Obama did and said next to nothing. In an interview conducted less than one week after the election, Obama downplayed the importance of the election in terms of the United States' foreign policy. This was typical of his dealing with the Iranians – he emphasizes diplomacy and talk without significant pressure. At the time of the stolen election, Obama's near silence in the face of a genuine opportunity to support crucially needed change in Iran drew enormous criticism. But he did nothing and said little, with the result that the brutal regime crushed the opposition. The opportunity came, and the opportunity passed, to stand with the people of Iran and force change on the regime.

Then there's Obama's dismissive attitude toward Israel. For example, when the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu came to the White House in 2010, Obama treated his guest to a series of slights. Photographs of the meeting were forbidden and an Israeli request to issue a joint-statement once it was over were turned down. The biggest slight came when the President abruptly rose and ended a meeting with the Israeli prime minister, saying that he had to go to dinner with his family. A year later, Obama gave a speech and declared the US wanted the borders of Israel and Palestine based on the 1967 lines, which are called the suicide lines because they are not defensible, nor have they been the jumping-off point for negotiations on a two-state solution in the past forty-five years. Obama demands a unilateral sacrifice concerning West Bank construction from Israel, which is not warranted given the facts on the ground and the realities of any genuine two-state solution. In addition, Obama sees some sort of moral equivalence to Israel when talking about terrorist organizations like Hamas, which refuse even to recognize Israel's right to exist.

There's plenty more when it comes to Obama's foreign-policy failures, but I will save those for another blog in the future. Again, please use these blogs I've posted over the past several weeks to talk to anybody who's wavering over whom to support for President. For both domestic and foreign-policy failures, Obama cannot be allowed to have another four years in office.

The President's attacks on Catholics and the Constitution

The election is drawing near, so I need to add much more to my review of Hugh Hewitt's book The Brief Against Obama. So much to cover, so little time. Let me see if I can combine a couple of points in this one blog.

First, there is the President's attack on Catholics. On January 20, 2012, the President approved a sweeping regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services requiring all employers except for a very narrow category limited essentially to actual houses of worship to provide "morning after" pills, sterilization, and birth control to all employees. This was a direct attack on the Roman Catholic church and on the "Free Exercise" clause of the Constitution. A Philadelphia Archbishop wrote, "No similarly aggressive attack on religious freedom in our country has occurred in recent memory."

Then there is Obama's attack on traditional marriage. As a candidate, he said marriage was the union between a man and a woman and that he considered it a sacred union because he was a Christian. He consistently maintained the rights of states to decide this question – in favor of civil unions – for themselves. However, on February 23, 2011, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced the President's decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. So, we have a candidate for President who said in 2008 that he did not support gay marriage, but then unilaterally withdrew the federal government's opposition to same-sex marriage less than three years later despite no change in law, and no Supreme Court or federal circuit court review. It always had been the well-established policy of the Justice Department to defend a federal statute unless no reasonable argument was made in its defense. But Obama and Holder nullified a valid law by executive decree without the benefit of judicial review.

Again, we need a President who will uphold the law, rather than subverting it. Be sure to see some of my past blogs for other reasons to make this a one-term President.

Obama, the DOJ, and a terrible decision

Here we go again, another reason we must vote Obama out of the White House this November. I'm going through chapters in Hugh Hewitt's The Brief Against Obama. This time, let's review the "Fast and Furious" debacle and cover-up.

The Obama administration in the fall of 2009 approved selling guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hope of tracing those guns to the big dealers of weapons and drugs. It all went terribly wrong when a year later U. S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona by suspected drug-smuggling operatives with two weapons that were part of this operation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as well as the Department of Justice, had long ago lost control of the weapons they had shopped to the cartels. In many cases, the end result appears to have been the arming of violent drug cartels south of the border.

Questions arose regarding why this was sanctioned and encouraged. However, answers have not been forthcoming from the Obama Department of Justice. The senior leadership over at ATF preferred to cooperate with a congressional inquiry, but they reported that Justice Department officials directed them not to respond. The result was that the Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, send over false denials and buried its head in the sand. The result was an obstructed investigation. In addition to not answering letters, DOJ didn't comply with congressional subpoenas. Holder's department not only stonewalled requests for information but appeared to influence the testimonies given to congressional inquiries.

Attorney General Holder didn't come off well in this disaster. When asked about the operation on May 3, 2011, he said he wasn't sure of the exact day he first heard of the operation but said it was "probably over the last few weeks." He also could not say who authorized the operation. Since then, Department of Justice memos have been released about Operation Fast and Furious that are addressed to Holder dated as early as July 2010. Either he has a terrible memory or he was lying. Neither is a great option.

The sales of Fast and Furious weapons coincided with an upswing of Mexican drug violence. Many of those who died in Mexico were killed with weapons supplied through this poorly thought out operation. This is President Obama's Department of Justice, so the buck stops with him. Just one more reason he has to go in November.

Obama and Dodd-Frank

I want to cover additional criticisms of President Obama in Hugh Hewitt's powerful book called The Brief Against Obama. This time, let's look at one of the least-reported fiascoes of the Obama years – the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill.

This law was touted as the most far-reaching financial reform since the Great Depression. What's a bit odd about this reform is its authors, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Frank was in charge of the overhaul of American banking while Dodd was busy trying to remain a few steps ahead of the investigators poking into the sweetheart deals he got from his friend, former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Neither Frank nor Dodd ever explained their consistent protection of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the years when the Bush administration urged reform. They ignored concerns about the time bomb of subprime lending excess, which eventually blew up the American markets.

Here's the incredible part. Instead of confessing their role when the bomb went off, these perpetrators brazenly pointed their fingers at Wall Street and proposed an incredibly complex reform law. Unfortunately, this law still leaves Fannie and Freddie untouched despite promises from the White House. Instead, the bill codified "too-big-to-fail" by allowing the government to guarantee important banks, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (headed by a single regulator and given sweeping, unchecked authority), and imposed hundreds of new regulations which make compliance very costly for small community banks.

How does Obama fit into all this? To this day he touts Dodd-Frank as an achievement of his administration. He has consistently blocked efforts to change or reform Dodd-Frank during his term. As a result, the complicated rules have created a short supply of credit. So, we have another reason to vote Obama out next month.

Obama--his gas and energy policies

I want to go back to Hugh Hewitt's book entitled The Brief against Obama. So far, I have summarized his chapters dealing with the nightmare of Obamacare, the failed stimulus, the huge budget deficits, the collapsed housing market, and the huge increase in the unemployed. This time I want to focus on Hewitt's chapter devoted to soaring gas prices and green energy scams.

Again, a little history is useful here. Retail motor gas prices in the United States were $1.89 per gallon when Obama was inaugurated. That was only $.38 more per gallon than when President Bush was inaugurated. But we've all seen recent gas prices, haven't we?

What has the President done regarding gas prices? He has limited drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies approximately 30% of our domestic oil production. In addition, the administration has pushed for new, tighter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to curb global warming. Don't get me started on global warming. I have several past blog pieces that you can read if you want additional information on that particular scam. Okay, back to Obama. He has also been hesitant to pursue plans to develop other sources of domestic oil production, plans like the Keystone pipeline from Canada, which he vetoed in early 2012, and further developments of resources on federal land.

So why did the national average for gas prices rise so sharply during his administration, especially after his so-called "recovery summer"? In a nutshell Obama restricted immediate domestic oil production, limited oil exploration that would increase domestic supply, increased legislation on much of our existing energy sector, and slowed initiatives that would increase domestic supply from sources other than offshore drilling (such as the Keystone pipeline and development on federal land).

Obama has been keen on investing in clean, renewable energy. How has that worked out? Despite all the funding and support to the American green energy industry over the past decade, it has failed to grow anything like anticipated levels. In some key areas, in fact, it has shrunk. Industry insiders have admitted that without incentives like cap-and-trade legislation, the industry will not grow quickly in the near future. The big picture is that, so far, even with the significant investments just described, the industry is still struggling to compete in the market. Most profit being made is in selling shares, rather than through the creation of marketable products. Clean power (from solar to biofuels) remains uncompetitive and unprofitable. Of course, that hasn't kept Al Gore from profiting handsomely from the green market. Good to know he's doing well by scaring people . . .

What is the smart way to invest in this upcoming industry? Policy experts suggest we should take a long view and support research and development rather than banking on particular companies. Solyndra, of course, is a perfect example of this. Obama and his administration repeatedly chose Solyndra as an example of his economic and green energy policies at work, and he apparently still does not regret it. What is disconcerting about this whole business fiasco is the connection between George Kaiser, a major investor in Solyndra, and Obama. Kaiser is a major donor to Obama's campaign and visited the White House several times to discuss "information on energy policy." E-mails indicate that decision-makers at the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) felt pressured to make a funding decision by White House representatives, who were concerned primarily about the political value offered by the loan announcement when the Vice President would be in California. Concerns about  Solyndra's solvency were never resolved. Obama visited the Solyndra plant in May of 2010, where he touted the company as a harbinger of American prosperity. Solyndra had a difficult time raising additional private capital because of its government loans since private investors correctly understood that in the event of bankruptcy, the government loan would be repaid before their investments. In September 2011, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. As more information has been revealed, it is clear that relevant parties knew the high risk of investing in this company from day one.

We have heard of other green energy companies folding as well. So, once again, we see the folly of government picking companies. But this is right out of the Obama playbook – have the government involved in everything. We can't afford this for an additional four years.

Obama's real record on fossil fuels

Another in a long list of problems I have with the current administration is its handling of energy production. So I was happy to read a piece by The Wall Street Journal that critiqued Obama’s remarks on energy in the second debate with Romney.

Remember how the President boasted of his investment in fossil fuels, invoking oil drilling, the natural gas fracking boom, and even coal production? That was so contrary to his actual policies, which over the past four years have ignored traditional sources of energy. Instead, he subsidized dozens of companies with little commercial potential but that were often owned by his green allies. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency went on a regulatory binge like nothing in modern U.S. history against traditional carbon-based sources of energy, coal in particular. There’s the reality behind all his grand pronouncements in the debate.

The true story came out in Romney’s rebuttal and in statistics compiled by the U. S. Energy Information Agency, a government outfit. Romney pointed out that the Administration has not in practice promoted the production of U.S. energy resources on federal lands and waters, in fact the opposite. In the last four years, Obama cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half. As support for Romney's charges, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) compiles energy statistics and notes the following: Production on government land of oil is down 14% and production of gas is down 9%. This organization also reports that total fossil fuel production in public areas—oil, gas and coal—has plunged to a nine-year low, to 18.6 quadrillion BTUs from 21.2 quadrillion in 2003. So much for the rosy picture Obama would like to paint.

It is true that overall domestic energy production is up, thanks largely to the shale boom in states like Pennsylvania and North Dakota. But Obama's trying to take credit for something he had nothing to do with, given that this surge is taking place on private property and the EPA is searching for an excuse to supplant state regulation and slow down drilling.

The biggest joke is Obama's declaration in the debate that he backs more coal production. A little history here is helpful.  In 2008 Mr. Obama declared that he wanted electricity rates for so-called dirty fuels to "necessarily skyrocket" and "if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can—it's just that it will bankrupt them."

So after four years, what does our coal industry look like under Obama? For the first time, coal is in decline, with production falling 6.5% since 2008, according to the EIA. The major reason is a surge of EPA air and water rules.

The EIA expects 8.5% of the coal-fired fleet to retire by 2016, and 17% by 2020, and those are very conservative estimates. Coal has fallen to 32% of U.S. net electric generation, according to preliminary EIA data for 2012. This share stood at about 48% when Mr. Obama took office. Even some regulators within the Administration oppose the EPA's draconian measures, fearing blackouts and other reliability issues as plants are retired despite many remaining useful years. Amid mine closings and layoffs, the United Mine Workers of America declined to endorse Mr. Obama this year, though the union did in 2008.

And then there's the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, which Mr. Obama personally rejected amid a furious green lobbying campaign. His debate answer to that fact was to assert that "we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once," whatever that means. Talk about an answer that wasn't an answer.

So, once again, please consider ending the Obama administration in November so we can go back to a sane energy policy. Sure, we need to work on new sources of energy, but it makes no sense to turn our back on current sources that are readily available.

Obama and the death of our ambassador in Libya

During the debate the other night, Obama tried to defend his administration’s handling of the debacle in Libya. I went to Hugh Hewitt’s website and found the following clips from major newspapers and speeches. They all indict the confusing and misleading ways Obama and his team characterized the attacks that left four of our people dead. Here are a few for your attention:

For Weeks Following The Terrorist Attacks In Libya, President Obama And His Advisers Offered “Shifting Accounts Of The Fatal Attacks.” “The Obama administration’s shifting accounts of the fatal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, have left President Obama suddenly exposed on national security and foreign policy, a field where he had enjoyed a seemingly unassailable advantage over Mitt Romney in the presidential race.” (Mark Landler, “Shifting Reports On Libya Killings May Cost Obama,” The New York Times, 9/28/12)

  

USA Today: “In Fact, Every Aspect Of The Early Account — Peddled Most Prominently By U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — Has Unraveled.” “Three weeks after an attack in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, we now know that it did not spring from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video, as the Obama administration originally described it. In fact, every aspect of the early account — peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — has unraveled.” (Editorial, “Shifting Libya Attack Story Raises Red Flags,”USA Today, 10/1/12)

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “For Political Reasons, It Certainly Was In The White House’s Interests To Not Portray The Attack As A Terrorist Incident…” “For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.” (Glenn Kessler, “From Video To Terrorist Attack,” The Washington Post, 9/27/12)

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012: President Obama: “What We Do Know Is That The Natural Protests That Arose Because Of The Outrage Over The Video Were Used As An Excuse By Extremists…” QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests –” QUESTION: “Al Qaeda?” OBAMA: “Well, we don’t know yet.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Univision Town Hall, Miami, FL, 9/20/12)

SEPTEMBER 24, 2012: President Obama Appeared On The View And Again Refused To Call The Attack Terrorism, Only Saying That The Attack “Wasn’t Just A Mob Action.” “President Barack Obama said Monday that the Sept. 11 attack that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans ‘wasn’t just a mob action,’ but he stopped short of explicitly labeling the assault as an act of terrorism. Obama’s comments came as he taped an interview with ‘The View’ during a brief trip to New York to address the annual United National General Assembly. He had been asked whether the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound in the city of Benghazi was a terrorist act.”(Olivier Knox, “Obama: Libya Attack ‘Wasn’t Just A Mob Action,’” Yahoo News’ The Ticket, 9/24/12)

Please note that these last two articles come nearly two weeks after the attack. This is either gross incompetence or a cynical cover-up. Not a great choice. Let’s get rid of Obama in November.

Obama and unemployment

I have been going through Hugh Hewitt's book The Brief Against Obama. So far I have covered some of Obama's domestic policy failures – Obamacare, the failed stimulus, the huge spending and borrowing binge, the depressed housing market. This time I want to focus on Hewitt's discussion of unemployment in America.

Bill Clinton bequeathed a low unemployment rate to George W. Bush. After the attack on America, the unemployment rate rose to 6% by 2003. Bush worked to drop the rate under 5% in 2007, but the panic in the fall of 2008 brought the jobless rate sharply higher.

This panic left our economy in a recession, so there was negative growth and a large unemployment leap to over 9% in 2009. However, the standard business cycle brought a recovery back to the country in 2010, but there the good news ended.

The recovery stalled. By 2011 the U.S. economy fell to near zero growth in some quarters, and confidence among US consumers plunged. Simply put, there was no recovery summer in 2010. So when Obama tells us today that things are looking up after a terrible economy that he inherited in 2009, be aware this is not true. The American economy recovered, and then slumped again – all on President Obama's watch. His policies have reversed the road to recovery.

Hmmm . . .  Isn't this the President who promised to cut the jobless rate in half, as well as the deficit? Instead, for over 40 months the jobless rate remained over 8%. Something like 23 million people are without a job. Many have quit looking, or otherwise the jobless rate would be much higher. When Obama took over, the jobless rate was 7.3%, yet it is higher than that today. Fewer people are working than when he took control in early 2009.

Obviously the President needs to establish steps for long-term growth so that unemployment drops. What he needs to encourage business growth are permanent cuts in corporate and individual tax rates along with a massive deregulation of businesses that act as job creators. However these solutions are not likely to happen with Obama in office since they run against his deeply ingrained big government/big spending ideology and his distrust of business. Again, we have been given a reason to vote him out of office.

Obama and the housing mess

Let me get back to a book by Hugh Hewitt called The Brief Against Obama. This is a powerful indictment against the President for so many failures. Hewitt’s next chapter has to do with the collapse of housing under his watch.

Here are some statistics to get the big picture. In 2006 around 24 million homes were built in the U.S. By 2011 that number had declined to 4 million, a huge drop. Hewitt says the loss of each home built comes to 219 jobs that could have been held by workers. In addition, foreclosures, as we all know, have skyrocketed since 2006. Then there’s the loss of home value. The average price of a new home was just over $300,000 in 2006, but that had slumped to $267,000 by 2011. Many people owe more on their homes than what they are valued at.

What did Obama do to help this situation? He launched a lot of initiatives to help individual homeowners, but none to help the housing market. But that’s no surprise. Coming from a background as a community organizer, he focused on individuals as part of a political organization built on misery and resentment.

This is just one more reason to return Obama to the private sector this November. There are plenty more reasons that I’d like to explore in the next couple of weeks.

Joe Biden and his cheerful assessment of Iran's potential nukes

There's been a lot of talk about Joe Biden and the weird laughs, smirks, and interruptions at the Vice Presidential debate. But what he had to say about Iran was chilling.

To a question about the Administration's willingness to stop the Tehran regime from going nuclear, he said what matters isn't Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade. It's whether it can build and deliver a bomb. His claim is that Iran has no way to send the bomb to a target and that we should all "calm down a little bit here."

In other words, Iran may have made progress toward enriching enough uranium to sufficient strength to build a bomb in the past four years, but that's immaterial. Based on the Vice President's intelligence, Iran isn't close to getting the trigger mechanism, missiles and all the other things needed to deploy a weapon. So don't worry, be happy.

But the reality is far more grim. Enrichment is the hardest thing about building a bomb. Iran has in any case worked to develop missiles and triggers with help from Russians, North Koreans and others.  So, it looks like the Obama Administration now has a new red line on Iran. The mullahs can enrich as much uranium as they wish as long as they "don't have something to put it in."

Wow, this is frightening. Once the crazies in Iran has the enriched uranium, they can get a delivery system in no time. We can't afford to see this scenario played out. Others in the Mideast will want their bomb too. Can you imagine a group of Arab countries with nuclear capabilities?

That's no laughing matter, Joe.