Throwing The Crown Jewel Under The Bus

      Big "F-in" Deal SCOTUS Bound 

The Affordable Health Care Bill, was conceived behind closed doors, and is perhaps the most partisan major piece of legislation passed and signed by a sitting President in US History.


Olympia Snow, R, Maine was voted yes to allow the bill out of Committee. In the end she voted NO on the final bill but it was her 'Et Tu Brutess' vote that allowed The Affordable Health Care Act to move forward.

The Affordable Healthcare Act written behind closed doors at the Whitehouse and not one Amendment by the Republican Congress was added to the over 2400 pages long piece of legislation.  And President Obama's broke his Inaugural promise to post legislation on line for a minimum of 72 hours. It was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009,  with deals made to some Senators to gain the votes necessary for Passage. 

The Affordable Health Care Act, was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, in a 'Big F'in Deal Ceremony held at the Whitehouse on March, 23, 2010."...Obama signed the bill in the East Room, before a crowd that included all 219 House members who voted for final passage of the bill Sunday. Also in attendance: Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime proponent of a national health care plan..."


Shortly after passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act, (which in my opinion created a permanent 'Caste System') Federally elected Representatives, The House Senate, Branch Executive Branch and Senior Staff were exempted . 

States immediately began lining up to sue the Federal Government for the wild overreach of the Obama Administration and joined one another in an effort to overturn this ruling.  "...Minutes after Obama spoke, Republican attorneys general from 13 states filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn aspects of the health care law, including the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or face financial penalties..."


Since The Affordable Health Care Act was passed the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has issued "...number of waivers issued for the greatest healthcare plan in the history of the world stands at 1,472..."


On September 26, 2011 In a stunning decision the Department of Justice announced it would not seek that the 11th Circuit Court review it's 2-1 decision against the The Affordable Health Care Act which now allows the process to move on to the United States Supreme Court.  

This article about the  decision, from the 11th Circuit says, "...Two words: Circuit Split. We now have one. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Friday struck down the law on constitutional grounds, by a 2-1 vote. The ruling is in direct conflict with a ruling from June from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, upheld the law’s constitutionality, also by a 2-1 vote.

The 11th Circuit ruled Friday that Congress exceeded its constitutional powers when it required individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull said in a jointly written opinion. The decision affirmed part of a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida, who ruled the health-insurance mandate unconstitutional..."

This Wall Street Journal says,"... By not seeking an 11^th Circuit review, the DOJ has increased the chances that the Supreme Court will consider the health-care law during this coming term and issue a ruling before the 2012 presidential election, Wall Street Journal reports..."

One cannot miss that the Left appears, to be playing politics and that Obama's precarious position and America's disdain for The Affordable Health Care Act are driving their decision making process.  

This Los Angeles Times article, points to the long shadow cast over 2012 Presidential race by The Affordable Health Care Act, "...The fate of Obama's healthcare overhaul figures to be at the center of next year's presidential race. Republicans have been running on a promise to "repeal Obamacare." If the Supreme Court were to strike down Obama's signature law as an unconstitutional overreach by the president and a Democratic Congress, it could deal a damaging blow to the president's campaign for reelection.

However, if the justices were to uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of the nation's health insurance market, their decision would give a powerful endorsement to Obama's crusade for healthcare reform just when he most needs it. A pro-Obama ruling by the court would also badly undercut claims by "tea party" activists who contend federal regulation of healthcare is outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution..."

In This commentary from The Washington Post states, "...On the other hand, if the goal is preservation of the policy at all costs, Justice’s decision has at least one attraction. Pretend Justice had asked the 11th Circuit to reconsider and the appeals court took its time, pushing Supreme Court review into 2013. If Obama then lost his reelection bid, it could have fallen to new a new Justice Department to defend the statute — one led by an attorney general appointed by a GOP president committed to unraveling the health-care law in every way he or she knows how. That hypothetical Republican administration could have decided to do what the Obama Justice Department did with the Defense of Marriage Act — offer no defense of the law at all..."

Allahpundit made some salient observations in this column at HotAir.com  "...Good catch by Politico: The deck was stacked against the White House in the rehearing, so why risk absorbing an unnecessary blow by having a full panel of the 11th Circuit rule against them? On the other hand, Tom Maguire made the case this morning for why a Supreme Court ruling before the election would be a very bad idea for The One:



Obamacare does not poll well and Republicans will be campaigning on its repeal whatever the Supremes decide. And (just thinking out loud here) Obama might actually benefit from a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare, since it would give him an excuse to give the people what they want. Put another way, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare it will be obvious that the only way to end it is to end Obama’s reign…


Delay is the only sensible choice for them. The strategic bet is that some of the folks who don’t like ObamaCare will figure that the courts will end it, and they will vote Democratic for other reasons. A Supreme Cout ruling against ObamaCare will energize Republicans; a Supreme Court ruling in its favor will double-energize them.


Interesting point, but having a conservative Court uphold the mandate would be a huge psychological boost for Obama and the left and might even help legitimize the program to independents who have been lukewarm about it until now. Don’t forget either that the White House is expecting Romney to be the GOP nominee. Even if grassroots conservatives feel energized by the Court decision, how jacked up can they be to replace Obama with … the architect of RomneyCare, who did more than anyone else until The One himself to introduce health-care mandates to America?


What I can’t figure out, though, is why O would run the risk of the mandate being struck down before the election. That would be demoralizing for the left and delegitimizing for Obama. What’s left of his first term if his signature domestic policy “achievement” ends up rubbished by SCOTUS as a violation of the Commerce Clause? I guess the thinking is that if the mandate is struck down, he can point to it as proof for liberals that they desperately need to appoint more left-wing justices to the Court and the only way to do that is to re-elect him. But even so, Obama’s not the kind of guy who wants to deal with X factors in the middle of the campaign..."

The Republican National Trust lays out this argument in an interview with David Rivkin, the lead counsel for the 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business in the Florida lawsuit against Obamacare, "...what is the significance of this decision?

David Rivkin: Well, it’s the first time the Court of Appeals has done it, point number one. Point number two, you have a bipartisan panel, I hate to engage in these types of observations, but it’s very important that you had a Republican judge and a Democrat nominee, if you will, come together. But most importantly to me, it is a meticulously crafted opinion. It’s long, 207 pages, and it debunks every single argument the government has made. And it has done it in a very measured, low-key fashion.

In my opinion, it sets it up perfectly for the Supreme Court review, and it will be the most influential Circuit Court opinion to set the stage, if you will, for the next phase.


Host: What is the key reason they gave for finding this individual mandate unconstitutional?


Rivkin: Interesting, because we’re ending up at this phase exactly where we started from the beginning. The argument is very simple. There is no meaningful, judicially enforceable limiting principle that attaches to this exercise of Congressional power.


If government can require you to spend your money, and the court emphasizes by the way, spending your money to purchase a product from another private party.

If the government can do that, the totality of your disposable income after taxes can be commanded by the government. That is a classical exercise of police power. Not a very good exercise policy-wise, but in terms of its legal pedigree, it’s what you call general police power; impacting people because they exist.

In our constitutional system, police power is vested in the states. Federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers. And the court basically says, quite correctly, that if the government can do this here, it can do a variety of other mandates. State sovereignty is gone. But most importantly, individual liberty suffers..."

A peek at some polling ( and I am willing to bet that the internal polling the Whitehouse is not sharing is even more devastating, in this article from Commentary, shows, "...One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters [Stanley Greenberg] released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today, painting an ominous picture for congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.


The story goes on to say that instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat. And here’s the really ominous news for Democrats: Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.


There’s also this: President Obama’s job approval rating in the battleground districts is just 41 percent — and only 43 percent in the 30 more competitive seats that are a little more Democratic.


What this means is right now, based on the data of a respected Democratic pollster, Democrats would — if the election were held today — suffer a wipeout that makes what happened to them in 2010 look like a walk in the park. And things are likely to get worse, not better, as the months roll on.


It may be that Barack Obama will do to the Democratic Party what no one, not even Ronald Reagan, could achieve–which is to bring it to its knees."


The article from the Commentary article can be found here.

Why would the Obama Administration be so willing to Throw The Affordable HealthCare Act under the big black bus of his never ending election tour?
 Let me say that coming from this administration who promised to fight to save The Affordable Health Care Act every step of the way, something is not right with this picture.




Here is the case I believe that Obama will make on the campaign trail to whip up, make them 'fired up, ready to go' to his base.


Obama will argue that Republicans and the Tea Party and Conservatives in particular are making every effort to deny every American Affordable Healthcare.  That this decision will hurt the poorest and most feeble, harm college students and that grandma and grandpa will die.  Obama will focus on those who will be hurt most are his base, who will be forced back to the broken system and fraud and outrageous profits of evil private insurance bogeymen and that millions of Americans will be unprotected and without medical care.

Obama will carefully frame his argument not on Constitutional law and the argument for limited government, but  as an attack on the little man and in particular people of color. This argument will be poll tested in the most grand and austere altruistic language.  His argument will be filled with strawmen, murky untrue facts  loaded with fearmongering and race baiting.

Having watched Obama's endless campaigning, for nearly four years, this will be his avenue of attack against Republicans.  I am certain that this will be the election manuever of choice by the Obama Administration.  I am not so certain that they will win this case before the Supreme Court.


Should his administration and the DOJ lose the case, Obama's campaign tour will 'pivot'from the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs plan, and go on the blaming others attack slamming and blaming the Supreme court of the United states and calling for the Justices to be condemned. Obama will vow to the Punish the evil rotten selfish Republican Party.


Obama's argument will also be that as long as the Supreme Court has a majority of rabid right wingers who support the elite rich, unkind doctors, evil pharmacetical companies, selfish private insurers and hospitals that do not care for minorities and Americans of color there will be no justice for the poor and uninsured.  

Obama will say, "Elect me to a second term, and we will appoint judges who will fight to protect those disadvantaged and abused by the rich and selfish Republican led Supreme Court."


I can see no way that the Supreme Court validates The Affordable Health Care Bill.


Should the Supreme Court find in favor of the Obama Administration, our founding documents immediately will truly just become only meaninless words.

******


In case you are interested from The National Republican Trust, here is information regarding why Justice Kagan must recuse herself from this suit of 26 states headed to the Supreme Court:

"...Until May 17, 2010, Kagan served as United States Solicitor General, whose primary role (as stated on the Office of the Solicitor General website) is to “supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.” Because of her work as Solicitor General, Kagan has recused herself from 11 cases, but she will not do so from challenges to ObamaCare. She should, for two reasons.



According to federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455), “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself… [if] he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” We know from documents obtained through CNS News’ FOIA request that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had been preparing for legal challenges to ObamaCare in January 2010, two months before Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. There is no way she did not serve as “counsel” or “advisor” concerning the constitutionality of ObamaCare.


28 U.S.C. § 455 also declares that a Kagan must recuse herself because she has expressed “a personal bias or prejudice” regarding ObamaCare’s constitutionality. At her Senate hearings, Kagan revealed that she believes the Commerce Clause is almost infinitely elastic: it can be “applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce...”

NY 9 ~ Why Obama Will Veto A Palestinian State

Return Israel To 1967 Borders
        "You Must Accept My Plan"



The Bully in Chief demanding Israel surrender
 lands won in the 1967 War

 
On June 4, 2009 Obama gave a speech in Cairo, Egypt laying out his Middle Eastern Policy.

In that now infamous speech, Obama wrongly stated Morocco  was the first nation to recognize the United States in 1796, when the truth is that France was our first ally and first to recognize the United States 18 years earlier in 1778.
Obama said, "...At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.


Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress."

Since Obama's community organizing speech in Cairo, the Middle East has exploded with one after another revolution.  This summer the Egyptian government was overthrown and President Mubarek, a long time ally of the United States is on trial.  Egypt has had an election, and it would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood, no friend to Israel or the United States has won recent elections and is in the process of writing a new Constitution based on Sharia Law.  Egypt has recently expelled the Israeli Ambassador and the Jewish Embassy in Cairo was attacked and set on fire.

Last year, in May of 2010 Israel seized a flotilla headed to Gaza, "Israeli naval personnel boarded a flotilla of six vessels attempting to violate the maritime blockage on Gaza. Militants on board attacked them with live fire and light weaponry including guns, knives and clubs. The attack on the Israeli soldiers was premeditated."

The government of Bahrain was also under pressure earlier the Saudi Arabia stepped in to squelch the uprising this summer.

Jordan, the only other nation besides Egypt to sign a peace treaty with Israel has also had  civil unrest.  And earlier this month it was reported "...Jordan's King Abdullah II, one of Israel's few remaining close allies in the Muslim world, said in remarks obtained Monday that the uprisings sweeping Arab nations have put the Jewish state in a difficult position. He also hotly rejected the notion that his country should take in Palestinians as a substitute for the creation of a state for them.


Abdullah told a closed meeting of Jordanian intellectuals and academics that Jordan and the Palestinians were now in a stronger position than Israel, whose current government fears growing isolation as a result of the Middle East's transformative changes in the Arab Spring.

In Yemen the President of Yemen, Saleh was attacked by Al Queada and received life threatening injuries.  the country remains in turmoil and a state of civil war. 

Just this week, Turkey and Egypt formed an alliance "As relations between Israel and two of its security and diplomatic bulwarks in the region — Egypt and Turkey — continue to deteriorate, the Obama administration is watching warily.


The unraveling of relations not only threatens Mideast stability and U.S. goals for the region, but it is coming as the Palestinians prepare to seek statehood recognition at the United Nations — a move that is likely to further complicate peace efforts, leave Israel even more isolated and push the Obama administration into the position of appearing to side with Israel over other allies and partners."

In Syria it would appear that the Assad administration has squelched the Arab Spring movement and has killed many demonstrators.  ..."Syria is a hotbed of protest and the Syrian government persist in shooting and killing it's citizens who are protesting for more freedom..."



It would appear that Obama's nation building speech in Cairo has left the Middle East very unstable.  And the tiny state of Israel is now surrounded by neighbors more openly hostile than in January of 2009

On May 19, 2011, President Obama in yet another major speech given at the United States Department of State, threw America's most stalwart ally, and only true Democracy in the middle east, Israel under the bus.


Israel's Pre-1967 Borders

"A day before the arrival in Washington of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution."

Here is a direct quote from Obama's speech, “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation,”

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

In 1964, the Arab League founded the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) whose stated goal was to destroy Israel, three years before the West Bank and Gaza Strip came under Israeli control.

For nearly 80 years the Democrats have owned the Congressional District of NY9. NY9 has the most highly concentrated Jewish Demographic of all 435 Congressional Districts.  In a stunning defeat last Tuesday, September 13, 2011 a 70 year old Catholic Republican Bob Turner won what had been not only Anthony Weiner's seat, but also the former Congressional Seat of Chuck Schumer.

In a very candid piece, former Mayor Ed Koch, could not have been more clear why he, a Democrat supported Turner and about the implications of losing this district, he stated, ..."I want to explain why I did what I did, so there's no misunderstanding of my intentions, or of my future plans. I hope President Obama gets the message that's been sent. If he does -- and if he announces, for example, that an attack by Turkey (which is heading toward war with Israel) or an attack by Egypt (which allowed the mob to occupy the Israeli embassy and threaten Israeli diplomats) would be seen as an attack upon the United States -- I'd be happy to support him and even campaign in Florida on his behalf in 2012.


But if he doesn't read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum. I will campaign against him not only in New York, but in other parts of the country next year. I'll be loud and clear about what I believe. There are many Floridians who are concerned about the Obama administration's treatment of Israel, and Florida will be crucial to the President's reelection..."

From the beginning of his Administration, Obama has pushed for a Palestinian State, ..."In February of 2011, the United States vetoed a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements that Susan Rice had started negotiations on with the Arabs. The Palestinians were furious and rightly so. After all, they had just spent weeks with Rice going back and forth on acceptable language to make Israeli settlement activity a violation of international law. While Obama has sent the same lower-level diplomats multiple times to the region to encourage direct negotiations, he hasn’t sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It’s no wonder the two sides haven’t spoken formally since Sept. 2010."

Rice’s rejection of the longstanding U.S. position of only encouraging direct negotiations led the Arabs to believe they were on a different path. Previous U.S. administrations had bluntly threatened vetos on resolutions that made unilateral declarations, but Obama’s team was clearly open to the idea.
Arab diplomats also point to Obama’s 2010 statement that he wanted to see Palestine a member of the United Nations by Sept. 2011 as proof that he wants them to make bold moves.

It is clear that once again the Obama Administration has shown it's ineptness and has been caught with their diplomatic pants blowing in the wind. 

The LA Times has made this assessment, "With efforts stymied to head off a U.N. resolution on Palestinian statehood, some Obama administration officials hope to make the most of a silver lining — the chance to emphasize the president's solidarity with Israel by casting a high-profile veto in the Security Council.  For months, U.S. and Israeli diplomats worked to forestall a plan by the Palestinians to present their resolution to the Security Council. Now, however, with Obama facing restiveness among some Jewish supporters, the prospect of a veto comes at a politically useful moment..."

At the Stand for Israel site, states this viewpoint, ..."The General Assembly is made up of 192 countries, all of which are U.N. members. A majority are Arab and Third World nations that are anti-Israel and have historically passed a disproportionate amount of resolutions condemning Israel. This practice can be traced back to 1974, when the UNGA passed the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution. Since a General Assembly vote has no legal standing, and because the Obama administration has already stated that it will veto Palestinian statehood if it reaches the Security Council, what will the Palestinian Authority gain from pursuing this?

I asked this question to my fellow Israelis and was intrigued by their response. Many people I spoke with think that the P.A.’s real motive is to drive a wedge between Israel and the U.S., and to further isolate Israel internationally. The P.A. believes that if Israel loses the support of the U.S., it will no longer have the ability to defend itself, and it will only be a matter of time before Israel is weakened to a point of submission."

In this piece from Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former director of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, it is clear that The Saudi's will be unhappy should the United States block the vote for nationhood of Palestine as a voting member of the UN Security council, ..."The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.


Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well..."

What a pickle and a predicament caused by Obama and his Foreign Policy Team.  He has completely undermined the Camp David Accords.  We are dependent on the Saudis for a fair portion of the oil we import, and Obama has created a true nightmare for himself and the United States by distancing himself from our most loyal ally in the Middle East, Israel. 

This Friday, the Palestinian Authority will go to the United Nations and make a bid for statehood, "...The historic friendship between the United States and Israel stretches from the founding of the Jewish state in 1948 to the present day. Our nations have developed vital economic and security relationships in an alliance based on shared democratic principles, deep cultural ties and common strategic interests. Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of "civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies."


Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and terror organizations that aim to destroy it, life has never been easy for Israel. Today, the challenges are mounting. The Jewish state faces growing hostility from Turkey. Its three decade-old peace with Egypt hangs by a thread. Iran pursues nuclear weapons its leaders vow to use to annihilate Israel. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas continue.

And now, the Palestinian leadership is intent on trashing the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict with Israel in favor of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations..."

And from this article found at Fox News, ..."The irony is that only 12 months ago, President Barack Obama said he wanted the U.N. to be welcoming Palestine as its newest member this year. But talks broke down long ago, and the U.S. is in the unenviable position of leading the opposition to something it actually supports, fearful a Palestinian victory might cause a debilitating rift with Israel and set the talks back further..."

From National Review Online, ..."There is no such thing as a Palestinian state, and the United Nations can’t conjure one into existence. That apparently won’t stop the Palestinians from seeking recognition as a state in the Security Council this week. We should veto the Palestinian effort without hesitation.


On top of its legal nullity, the push for recognition at the U.N. trashes the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which commit both the Israelis and the Palestinians to addressing their differences through negotiations. Thwarted at the Security Council, the Palestinians will likely go to the rabble in the General Assembly, where we don’t have a veto and they will presumably succeed in putting a fig leaf on a fraud..."

The stunning victory in NY9, by Bob Turner, R, who ran on a platform castigating President Obama over his Middle East policies, changed Obama's plans. President Obama is struggling in the polls, and he cannot afford to lose the financial support or the votes from the Jewish demographic, which is falling nationwide.

This yet another glimpse into the failed polices of President Obama and the damage he has created for the United States.  How can any of our allies rely on the United States in lieu of Obama's policies towards Israel and his not so veiled incivility to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  At this time nearly 3 years into his term, Obama has yet to visit Israel.

No wonder he is panicked about Jewish support and the voters in NY9, Florida and Pennsylvania.

He ought to be.  Any one with a half a brain could figure out the significance of losing a seat your party had held for 79 years.
 
I stand with Israel.  I am offended by the treatment our most loyal ally has received from the Obama Administration.

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

I suggest the following videos regarding the partition of Israel in 1948, and the violence that Israel has faced from Hamas and Hezbollah, two wings of the Muslim Brotherhood, made by The Terrorism Awareness Project so that you can judge for yourself just how wrong headed President Obama's determination Israel should return to her pre-1967 borders.  The first is titled "What Really Happened in the Middle East" And the second is titled "Jimmy Carter's War" .

Regulation Nation~An Army Of Regulators

Regulation Without Representation


The United States Government is the biggest government in the world.  In terms of size U.S. revenues, expenditures, deficits and the amount of debt that we have accumulated.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has 81,405 Pages Of Taxes and Fees. In 2010 unelected federal regulators wrote 78% more coded regulatory laws than were written and passed by the 111th Congress. Federal agencies wrote 3,573 coded laws, while our elected officials in Congress wrote 217 Bills that were passed and signed into law by the President.

A mind boggling 4,225 laws are placed in the federal regulatory pipeline to become law and 224 are considered economically significant, wielding an estimated economic impact of $22 billion dollars annually.

Of the 58 Agencies busy writing laws as complicated as our tax code, the biggest producers of regulatory excesses emanate from the departments of the Treasury, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Agriculture, along with the Environmental Protection Agency.  These 5 agencies are responsible for 1,820 rules, or 43% of all rules in the Unified Agenda pipeline.

58 Agencies and an army of dedicated unelected federal employee regulators every day are busy writing exacting complicated rules.  Rules with punishing fines and penalties that impact the lives and employment of every American and effect the hiring decisions and profits of every sector of American Commerce and Industry.

Unlike private industry, that annually makes a cost benefit analysis of their operation, these agencies are not subject to cost benefit analysis that would review their economic impact by a third party.

From an article in The American, "Industry Has Spoken...Will The President Listen", ..."On February 7, 2011, Chairman Issa released a 2,000-page PDF of responses from 113 organizations. We dug into the file, and even we were surprised: While complaints about Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the tax code, and provisions of the new healthcare law were expected, the clear focus of most responses was environmental regulation. As the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council warned:


The general regulatory thrust of the Administration with regard to energy and the environment will lead to less energy, higher energy prices, a disincentive to manufacture in the U.S. and massive job loss. Our energy sector is being forced into a regulatory vice—caps and restrictions are being imposed on how much America can use and produce, while excessive regulation on energy use and the industry are driving costs higher. Anti-energy activists in the regulatory bureaucracies seem accountable to no one. Unfortunately, small business owners and their workforce will bear the brunt of higher costs and widespread job loss if initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency move forward..."

And from the same article, ..."the Association for Manufacturing Technology did not cite specific regulations, but rather explained that:  'in many cases, regulations are excessive, confusing and so costly that R&D and business development suffer as a result, hindering job growth and stifling innovation. This is particularly true with regulations originating from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where it is obvious that regulators know little or nothing about manufacturing.'..."

From The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ten Thousand Commandments, 2011, page 11, ..."As noted in the introductory summary, taxation and regulation can substitute for each other because regulation can advance government initiatives without using tax dollars. Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new programs, the government can require the private sector—as well as state and local governments—to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs.


Because such regulatory costs are not budgeted and lack the formal public disclosure of federal
spending, they may generate comparatively little public outcry. Regulation thus becomes a form of off-budget or hidden taxation..."


Regulatory reforms placed by the Legislative Branch of government on agencies to police themselves will not rein in the regulatory state. However making Congress directly accountable to voters for the costs that are imposed on the public written by anonymous bureaucrats would promote more accountable regulation.

The road to control regulation is for voters to require Congress to vote on agencies’ final rules before such rules become binding on the public.

From a study conducted by The Phoenix Center For Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, ..."In this POLICY BULLETIN, we quantify the impact on GDP and job growth of reductions in
the regulatory budget. Using econometric methods, we estimate that reductions in the federal regulatory budget have sizable effects on both GDP and jobs. A 5% reduction in the regulatory budget, which equals about $2.8 billion in spending, increases GDP by roughly $75 billion and the number of jobs by about 1.2 million annually. A 10% cut in the regulatory budget adds $149 billion to GDP annually and expands employment by 2.4 million jobs in each year. In recent years, however, the size of the regulatory budget has risen sharply, with the Obama Administration proposing numerous new regulatory agendas. This expansion in the regulatory budget is demonstrated here to be a drag on the economy and job creation. Each regulator (or employee of a regulatory agency) costs the American economy, at the margin, $6.2 million in economic output and about 98 private sector jobs each year. Accordingly, if policymakers wish to stimulate jobs and reduce federal spending, then responsibly trimming the regulatory budget may be a viable option."

No matter how you look at the current size and scope of our Federal Government's regulation, it absolutely is not what the Founders of this great nation had in mind.

Fundamentally Flawed Favoritism of President Present/President Absent &

 His Audacious Alliance of Thuggery

President Obama, Democrats and his Administration, backed by Unions, and the Environmental Movement, the NAACP, actively engage in the childish activity of blaming others.  They are engaged in political polarization. Obama the Democrats and the Main Stream Media nearly three years after his election are still blaming the Bush Administration.

During the Health Care Debate, not only did President Present outsource the writing the health care bill behind closed doors to Andy Stern and the SEIU. President Absent allowed the smarmy activity of turning your neighbors to the Whitehouse.  In the bowels of the Whitehouse, Linda Douglass  manned the online email program to turn your neighbors and friends in to the Whitehouse because they did not support ObamaCare.  Once discovered, it was such an outrage that Linda Douglass was forced to resign, and the political ploy of snitching out your friends was stopped.

The newest Gestapo, Politburo Obama snitch out an American tactic for telling the truth about the Obama Administration's smear machine is AttackWatch, paid for by "Obama For America".  What pointy headed rocket scientist genius tied to the Obama Re-election Committee accepted this attack on American citizens and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?  Obviously Obama supports this divide, conquer and stifle any criticism of the failed policies of the Obama Administration.  President Absent never indicated once or pointed out the total inappropriateness of snitching on your neighbors because they don't support his policies.

In January President Obama stated, ..."But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals...."

This summer during the recall elections in Wisconsin unions spent millions in advertising condemning traditional American values expressed by the Tea Party. Elected officials in the Democratic Party Leadership have played the race baiting card against the Tea Party, Maxine Waters, Andre Carson, and Sheila Jackson Lee. Countless MSM talk show hosts and Democratic pundits continue to castigate everyday Americans who support the principles of the Tea Party as ignorant, racist and anti-American. They could not be more wrong.

Not once during the spring or on President Obama's bus tour through the decayed rust belt of manufacturing America did President Absent condemn the fiery rhetoric of his supporters on the left. 

Nor did President Absent or his administration offer anything but excuses of  tin-earred deafness to Jimmy Hoffa Jr's expletives and threats to the  Tea Party Caucus of Congress and members of Tea Party Organizations across America, seeking a return to the Constitution, lower taxes, and holding elected official accountable.

Both the $535 million dollar loan to Solyndra and the raid of the Gibson Guitar manufacturing facility exposed the naked preference to failed green energy and the hostility of the Obama Administration to private sector employment.

On his first state visit to Great Britain President Present gave the Queen of England an Ipod filled with his speeches and wrongly formatted DVRS of all of his lofty campaign rhetoric.  President Absent also sent the Bust of Churchill a gift to the United States after the 9/11 attacks from Tony Blair back to England. 

Continuing his foreign policy successes a vapid President Present offered to meet with Iran's President Ahmedinnejab with no preconditions, while President Absent stood silently during the Iran's Green Movement was rallying by the hundreds of thousand's in the streets of Tehran were gunned down by Iran's government.

President Present's DOJ and the ATF find themselves mired in the  GunRunner Scandal and Fast and furious.  President Absent sat in a State visit joint session of Congress speech by Mexican President Calderone a speech condemning the State of Arizona Immigration law modeled on United States Federal Government coded law. 

In a major speech on May 19th President Absent  called on Israel to return to their pre 1967 borders, this 11months after President Present in a meeting could not grind Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet his demands ..."After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements," President Absent "walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said."


President Present cheered the "Muslim Spring" in Egypt, and President Absent remained mute while the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the Mubarack Government of Egypt.

President Present is always happy to show up at any occasion and roll out his straw man argument from his bully pulpit to celebrate Keynesian Economics, and push his agenda forward.  But in the Whitehouse President Absent is happily signing Executive Orders and documents like the EJ MOU to undermine Congress if only until he is replaced in 2012.

This summer once again, during the debt crisis, in July President Present in his disingenuous best once again threatened the Military, Veterans and Social Security recipients they may not receive their checks if Congress would not accede to his and Tim Geithner's massive debt increase request. From the same link, "...Obama decides who does not get paid, and he decides who does get paid. When he threatens not to pay the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and even the military, he is saying that he has higher priorities than them. These may be things like Planned Parenthood, foreign aid to countries that may not even be friendly toward Barackistan, Michelle Obama’s personal staff of 40, State-run media (like NPR), and so on..."

And as usual during the Negotiations with Speaker Boehner President Present moved the goal post and blamed The Tea Party caucus in Congress and the Republican majority for the financial difficulties this nation faces because President Absent refused to take their advice, and did not chastise Harry Reid for tabling the Ryan Budget or Cut Cap and Balance of which either would have prevented the S&P United States credit rating.

The latest affronts to how our democracy works have surfaced as President Present calls for increased taxes while his political cronies like Warren Buffet owe back taxes, ..."On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.


Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama . His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing."

And during the Josapalooza Keynesian Stimulus speech unbelievably Jeffrey Immelt was seated next to First Lady Michelle "Antoinette" President Present pushed for higher taxes while GE paid no taxes .
Further in a more than bizarre juxtaposition of facts and US jobs, GE is moving its X-Ray division from Wisconsin to China  how could President Absent not know this?

Unbelievably President Present in one more Jobsapalooza speech to day said ..."The president particularly emphasized the bill's commitment to providing jobs in education and improving educational facilities.


"All across North Carolina, all across the country, there's schools with leaky ceilings and lousy heating... [with] ventilation so poor it can make students sick," he said, prompting laughter from the crowd in light of the room's lack of air conditioning.

"How can we expect our kids to do our best in places like that?" he asked. "We've got incredibly talented young people who want to teach, but while places like South Korea are adding teachers... we're laying off teachers left and right."

As the student-packed audience cheered, Mr. Obama urged: "Tell Congress to pass the American jobs act and put teachers back into the classroom where they belong."

"We know what's right: We know what we've got to do to create jobs right now," he continued, to enthusiastic applause. "We've got to give workers new skills for new jobs... We've got to give our young people a chance to earn a college education... We need to build an economy that lasts."

"I love you Barack!" one voice cried out in the crowd.

"I love you back," the president replied. "But if you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill!"

There are countless more examples of when President Present's rhetoric does not match President Absent's actions.

November 6, 2012 cannot come soon enough, and I look forward to the day when the President of all of the citizens of the United States listens to all Americans and the President's actions match the President's words.

I am personally worn out of President Present's Agenda before his Constitutional duties, cronies before sound policy and Keynesian Economics the policy of Audacious President Absent wrecking this nation.

Jobsapalooza "The Not Jobs Plan" That Only

 PT Barnum Would Love

The Snookering of America

In a Joint Session speech given to Congress on September 8, 2011
President Obama laid out his campaign strategy for the 2012 Presidential elections.

President Obama in the well of the House of Representatives  spoke in his full bully pulpit mode.

"Pass this bill", "Pass this Plan right away!"  Similar demands were used as rhetoric 17 times during the Jobsapalooza Campaign stop on Capitol Hill.  Demands to "Pass this plan right away" were followed by threats from  Obama reminiscent of socialist regimes, and speeches one would expect from behind the Iron Curtain  the Politburo.  Threatening to take the Jobsapalooza Plan nationwide, which he did on Friday, with a Jobsapalooza Campaign stop targeting Eric Cantor's Congressional District.

Obama is trapped in Keynesian Wonderland and he continues in his pursuit of the failed economics polices of ivory towered professors and elites of the left.  From an article at Forbes,  "...And since Obama remains oblivious to how his Administration’s weak dollar policies and resulting high rates of taxation weigh on the economy like no other policy, his proposal from Thursday is doomed to fail. Sadly for all us, it will do more than fail. Not only will it not work, but for its stated objective being one of extracting even more capital from the private sector to destroy, Obama’s plan is quite simply harmful."

Missing from the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan is how to revitalize the manufacturing sector, or creating jobs and securing energy independence by drilling for oil and natural gas. 

The government now accounts for over 35% of the United States economy, and has replaced the manufacturing sector. The United States has lost  32% of all manufacturing jobs since October 2000. 

Included in the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Bill, is more of the same from the first stimulus bill,



Political payoffs. Nearly one-quarter of this latest stimulus package — sorry, American Jobs Act — is aid to state and local government, to keep teachers and other public-employee union members on the job and paying dues to the unions. Altogether, unions gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. Pretty good return on their “investment,” eh?"

And Obama still wants his high speed bullet trains in his Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Bill, ..."Pathetic promises. Perhaps he hoped people wouldn’t notice, but Obama did put in two words — “faster trains” — as a plug for his pet project of high-speed rail. Liberal blogger Kevin Drum calls California’s HSR project, the largest in the nation, “a fantastic boondoggle,” likely to cost three or four times estimates and with ridership estimates that are “fantasies.” “We have way better uses for this dough,” Drum concludes.

The Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan is however funded with over $400 billion in new taxes.
"The White House objective is to put lawmakers in a difficult spot: Back Obama's jobs package or risk being portrayed as doing nothing to improve the U.S. unemployment crisis heading into the November 2012 elections.



But the Democratic president's proposals to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan will be hard for Republicans to swallow. They said the idea of taxing the wealthy and corporations was not in keeping with a bipartisan path he was seeking.


White House budget director Jack Lew said the biggest item in Obama's plan would raise $400 billion by limiting deductions and exemptions on individuals who earn more than $200,000 per year and families who earn more than $250,000.


He also proposed raising $18 billion by treating the earnings of investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at lower capital gains rates.


He would eliminate many oil and gas industry tax breaks to raise $40 billion and change corporate jet depreciation rules to bring in another $3 billion.

Obama stepped up his campaign to sell his proposals to American voters as he prepared to send the jobs bill to lawmakers later on Monday.

"This is a bill that is based on ideas from both Democrats and Republicans, and this is a bill that Congress needs to pass -- no games, no politics, no delays," Obama said in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden, holding up a thick text of the legislation held together with a black clip.

The president, who pushed through an $800 billion economic stimulus package in 2009, will see his re-election chances hinging heavily on his ability to reduce stubbornly high unemployment above 9 percent.

The bottom line for Republicans was that Obama is now trying to pay for his jobs plan entirely with tax increases.

"It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress.

"We remain eager to work together on ways to support job growth but this proposal doesn't appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit."

Here is an overview of the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan from Obama:  and it is not a pretty picture.  The Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan is just a re-run of the misspent first stimulus bill, which did not stimulate the economy, and did not save or create any jobs. 

"...1. Temporary Tax Cuts. The president wants to extend and expand the temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that Congress enacted last December. The president also called for a grab-bag of tax credits for businesses that buy new equipment, hire veterans or even give workers a raise. There is obviously nothing wrong with letting workers keep a bit more of their money. And some of the tax breaks might encourage businesses to speed up otherwise planned hiring or purchases, providing a short-term economic boost. But neither people nor businesses tend to make the sort of long-term plans needed to boost production, generate growth and create jobs on the basis of temporary tax changes. This is especially true when businesses can look down the road and see tax hikes in their future.



2. Further Extending Unemployment Benefits. The president wants to spend $49 billion to provide another extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Of course everyone can sympathize with the plight of the long-term unemployed. But, the overwhelming body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits may actually increase unemployment and keep people out of work for longer. In fact, many economists believe that current extensions of unemployment benefits have already extended the average length of unemployment by three weeks or more.


3. Bailing Out the Teachers Unions. The president’s plan calls for spending $35 billion in grants to states to hire or retain some 280,000 teachers. The president wants to spend another $30 billion to repair and modernize school buildings, with the catch that school districts that accept the funds are prohibited from laying off any teachers. Spending on school building and repair has already increased by 150% over the last two decades, without either improving education or generating many jobs. And the greatest threat to teacher retention is not a lack of federal aid, but burdensome labor contracts.


4. More Infrastructure Spending. Like all the stimulus bills before it, the president’s latest proposal calls for still more pork barrel spending for “infrastructure.” One begins to wonder why we haven’t paved over the entire country by now. No doubt there are roads and bridges in need of repair, but the ability of the federal government to sort out good projects from bad is debatable at best. And the president is once again planning to plow money into such dubious projects as high-speed rail.


5. More Tax Hikes. Worst of all, the president plans to pay for all this new spending by -- you guessed it -- raising taxes on businesses and high-income Americans. The president, once again, referred to “millionaires and billionaires” in his speech, but his actual proposal calls for raising taxes on families earning as little as $250,000 per year. In places like New York, that’s not the “super rich.” In addition, many of these tax hikes would fall on small businesses. The president’s jobs plan, then, is to tax exactly those people and businesses that create jobs. And all this is on top of the new taxes and regulations that the Obama administration has already pushed through.


It’s not just the details of the president’s proposal that are wrongheaded, it’s the basic concept. The real drags on our economy have nothing to do with the failure of government to spend enough. The federal government is now spending roughly 24% of GDP. State and local governments are spending another 10% to 15%, meaning government at all levels is spending roughly 40 cents out of every dollar produced in this country. If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age..."

Obama fully intends to increase the top marginal tax rates and he and his party have set a minefield for Republicans to cross in order to come up with a bill that Reid will not table and that Obama will sign, with many opportunites for Obama's strawman arguments.

"...By inviting House Republicans to stumble into this trap, the president is also hoping to preempt the congressional super-committee’s option of reducing deficits by trimming tax loopholes. President Obama is trying to lay claim to any potential revenues from cutting loopholes (or legitimate deductions) for his own pet projects, which include grants to hire more state and local government workers and extended unemployment benefits for the private sector.


This is no “jobs plan.” It’s a tax-and-spend plan, and a bad one..."

Here is a background article that links to a study by the Mercatus Center that explains some of the reasons the first stimulus bill failed.   ..."The Keynesian theory was that a burst of new government spending would take up some of the slack in aggregate consumer demand. This was justified in 2008, again in 2009, and is still defended now based not on real-world observation but on abstract macroeconomic models that depend on the assumptions of the authors. The Congressional Budget Office's quarterly studies--often cited to claim the stimulus created tens of thousands of new jobs--are based on such a model. By informative contrast, Messrs. Jones and Rothschild interviewed actual people who received stimulus dollars and asked how they spent the money.



In the first paper, the authors survey 85 different businesses, nonprofits and local governments across the country and conclude that "As is often the case when economic models are transferred from the blackboard to actual public policy, there was a gap between theory and practice."


One of the major patterns Messrs. Jones and Rothschild uncovered was that the top-down stimulus was poorly targeted. In one redolent example, a federal contractor said he was told to use smaller, nonstandard tiles that are harder and more expensive to install in order to increase the cost of the project. That way, the government could claim the money was moving out the door faster. The famous Milton Friedman line about government ordering people to dig with spoons to employ more people comes to mind..."

Once again Thomas Sowell has nailed Obama, "...Obama says he wants "federal housing agencies" to "help more people refinance their mortgages." What does that amount to in practice, except having the taxpayers be forced to bail out people who bought homes they could not afford?


No doubt that is good politics, but it is lousy economics. When people pay the price of their own mistakes, that is when there is the greatest pressure to correct those mistakes. But when taxpayers who had nothing to do with those mistakes are forced to pay the costs, that is when those and other mistakes can continue to flourish -- and to mess up the economy.


Whatever his deficiencies in economics, Barack Obama is a master of politics -- including the great political game of "Heads I win and tails you lose."


Any policy that shows any sign of achieving its goals will of course be trumpeted across the land as a success. But, in the far more frequent cases where the policy fails or turns out to be counterproductive, the political response is: "Things would have been even worse without this policy."

It's heads I win and tails you lose.


Thus, when unemployment went up after the massive spending that was supposed to bring it down, we were told that unemployment would have been far worse if it had not been for that spending.


Are we really supposed to fall for ploys like this? The answer is clearly "yes," as far as Obama and his allies in the media are concerned.


Our intelligence was insulted even further in President Obama's speech to Congress, when he set up this straw man as what his critics believe -- that "the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own."


Have you heard anybody in any part of the political spectrum advocate that? If not, then why was the President of the United States saying such things, unless he thought we were fools enough to buy it -- and that the media would never call him on it?"

This great snarky satire says what every Conservative heard when Obama was in the well of the House giving his Jobsapalooza Not Jobs grand campaign speech during the Joint Session of Congress:

My favorite article I found for the President Obama's Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Bill can be found here : Arrogance is no substitute for experience. That is why the country is in the mess it is in now.



..."Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, do-nothing members of Congress, Tea Party terrorists, handmaidens of the media, and all you little people out there in TV land:



Tonight we meet at an urgent time. The economic crisis you hired me to fix has gotten even worse. As unemployment rises and my poll numbers sink it's harder to blame George Bush. Reporters keep asking, "What will this speech mean for the President?" TV viewers ask, "Will this windbag shut up before the game starts?"

 Many people in this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The rest are happy to take handouts from me. The question tonight is, can we stop the political circus long enough for Congress to spend another half trillion dollars so I can buy the votes I need to get re-elected? And if not, can I leverage this speech to blame my opponents?


So I am sending Congress a plan that you should pass right away. Call, email, fax, and tweet right now, operators are standing by! I call it the American Jobs Act, although around the West Wing the interns are drawing little Charlie Brown placekick cartoons captioned This Time For Sure."

The Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan is just more snake oil that will not cure this nations unemployment epidemic any more than some of the concoctions cured sick and ailing that were sold from the backs of wagons in the Wild Wild West, and often the cure could be more poisonous than the symptoms.

The only job Obama is interested in is his own. Anyone who buys this new tired version of Obama's Jobsapalooza Not Jobs Plan are certain prey, and they are truly the definition of the old idiom, "A fool and money are soon parted."