Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Mark Steyn writes on the president whose name soon will be the punch line for a thousand jokes.
Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee a few days ago – that’s 60 years on the throne. Just to put it in perspective, she’s been queen since Harry S. Truman was president. At any rate, her jubilee has been a huge success, save for a few churlish republicans in various corners of Her Majesty’s realms from London to Toronto to Sydney pointing out how absurd it is for grown citizens to be fawning over a distant head of state who lives in a fabulous, glittering cocoon entirely disconnected from ordinary life.
Which brings us to President Obama.
Last week, the republic’s citizen-president passed among his fellow Americans. Where? Cleveland? Dubuque? Presque Isle, Maine? No, Beverly Hills. These days, it’s pretty much always Beverly Hills or Manhattan, because that’s where the money is. That’s the Green Zone, and you losers are outside it. Appearing at an Obama fundraiser at the home of “Glee” creator Ryan Murphy and his fiancé David Miller, the president, reasonably enough, had difficulty distinguishing one A-list Hollywood summit from another. “I just came from a wonderful event over at the Wilshire or the Hilton – I’m not sure which,” said Obama, “because you go through the kitchens of all these places, and so you never are quite sure where you are.”
Ah, the burdens of stardom. …
Neal Boortz analyzes Clinton’s apology.
For the past 18 hours or so I’ve been watching various pundits try to analyze Bill Clinton’s so-called “apology” to Barack Obama? Apology for what? Apology for suggesting that now, while we’re in a recession and trying to find the key to growing our economy, might not be a good time to raise taxes on the rich. So naturally the Obama people contacted the Clinton people to ask them just what in the hell they’re trying to do? Obama’s one constant theme since he was sworn in is that the rich – the people who pay the bulk of the income taxes in this country – need to pay more because, after all, they have money they don’t “need.” Obama even went so far at one point as to say that he didn’t want to live in a country that would “allow him” to keep this money that he has earned that he didn’t really need. And then along comes Clinton to say that now would be a bad time to raise taxes on these people?
So yesterday, Clinton apologizes. …
Ed Morrissey posts on Lanny Davis’ remarks about the “vicious people” working for the president.
Via BuzzFeed and Matt Lewis, here’s the latest in blue-on-blue political warfare from Lanny Davis, literally one of Bill Clinton’s most ardent defenders. Davis presented the defense during Clinton’s impeachment trial and has been loyal to both Clinton and the Democrats for decades. At some point this week, those loyalties ceased to be redundant as the Obama team humiliated the former President and even had Clinton’s own team insinuating that he might be a little too old to be taken seriously any longer — at age 65. An Obama administration official told the New York Post that Newark Mayor Cory Booker was “dead to us” despite humbling himself in what was widely panned as a “hostage video” after contradicting the Obama campaign’s Bain Capital-”vampire capitalist” strategy.
Speaking yesterday on “America’s Radio News Network,” Davis blasted Obama’s teams in the administration and the campaign, and wondered where they’d find any friends after this week:
“You have vicious people who are working for the president …”
Thomas Sowell on the real war against women.
Among the people who are disappointed with President Obama, none has more reason to be disappointed than those who thought he was going to be “a uniter, rather than a divider” and that he would “bring us all together.”
It was a noble hope, but one with no factual foundation. Barack Obama had been a divider all his adult life, especially as a community organizer, and he had repeatedly sought out and allied himself with other dividers, the most blatant of whom was the man whose church he attend for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
Now, with his presidency on the line and the polls looking dicey, President Obama’s re-election campaign has become more openly divisive than ever.
He has embraced the strident “Occupy Wall Street” movement, with its ridiculous claim of representing the 99 percent against the 1 percent. Obama’s Department of Justice has been spreading the hysteria that states requiring photo identification for voting are trying to keep minorities from voting, and using the prevention of voter fraud as a pretext.
But anyone who doubts the existence of voter fraud should read John Fund’s book “Stealing Elections” or J. Christian Adams’s book, “Injustice,” which deals specifically with the Obama Justice Department’s overlooking voter fraud when those involved are black Democrats. …
Investors.com on what caused the slow recovery.
Whenever the subject of the weak economic recovery under President Obama comes up, his defenders tend to respond along the lines of: “What do you expect, since the recession was the worst since the Great Depression?”
It’s an argument the head of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers made last week, after the U.S. created just 69,000 jobs in May, and unemployment remained stuck above 8% for the 40th month in a row.
“There is much more work that remains to be done to repair the damage caused by the financial crisis and deep recession,” wrote Alan Krueger.
Obama himself has used this excuse. “From the moment we first took action to prevent another Great Depression, we knew the road to recovery would not be easy; we knew it would take time,” he said last week.
But the history of economic cycles suggests that the exact opposite should have happened.
“Typically following a recession, the economy rebounds strongly,” Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker noted in the bank’s quarterly journal.
What’s more, deeper recessions tend to produce strong recoveries.
“You can’t find a single deep recession that has been followed by a moderate recovery,” Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital, said back in August 2009.
David Harsanyi makes a point about the headlines claiming Walker “survived” the recall election.
The Wisconsin “survival” election:
Scott Walker – 53 percent
Tom Barrett – 46 percent
The 2008 audacious Barack Obama presidential election – AKA: “historic blowout victory,” ”a national catharsis,” “landslide,” etc…
Barack Obama – 53 percent
John McCain – 46 percent