NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times.

Republicans running from punt they set up

By Andrew P. Napolitano

distressDo you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? It is more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government. Assuming this is the case, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Mr. Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Mr. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans — some by chance, some by choice and some by force — are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.

His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working, now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. They can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.

The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have held that the government’s decision to pay entitlements is a political, not a legal, one. Stated differently, the federal government has no legal obligation to pay any money to any Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid applicant. That’s why those who have relied on the political wisdom of politicians, rather than their own prudential judgment, are dupes. Let me rephrase that: Those who have permitted politicians to use the force of law to compel everyone to contribute their hard-earned income to a bankrupt government Ponzi scheme are dupes if they think this can work without end.

When FDR first proposed his Social Security scam, he knew that only force and duplicity would get enough people into the system to generate the cash flow at the entry side of the Ponzi scheme to make it salable to Congress and to the American people. LBJ knew the same was the case for his expansions of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid. What LBJ probably did not anticipate is that health insurers would largely cease offering products of primary insurance to seniors. Seniors then required the government entitlements into which they had mistakenly believed they were contributing, because the government became the only game in town.

Now that the emperor has no clothes, and we are confronting more and more seniors who have been lulled into this false sense of security, and fewer young workers are even entering the job market, the government’s voracious need for cash is difficult to fulfill. Earlier this year, when members of both parties in Congress recognized this ticking time bomb, they agreed to address it by punting. Now, that punted political football is falling to the earth, and no one wants to catch it. The punt they bequeathed to themselves is a tax increase for everyone and reductions in spending that even they find to be odious. The odor they dislike is the realization, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, that they are running out of other people’s money.

The president was re-elected on promises of more of the same: more borrowing, more spending and new taxes on the rich. The Republicans who got elected did so on promises of lessened spending and no new taxes, to paraphrase George H.W. Bush. The president, who is the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson, is largely ignorant of economics 101. But his ignorance is consistent with his beliefs that the feds can continue to spend more than they collect and continue to borrow without ever repaying.

The Republicans in the House are largely more conservative than at any time since Wilson left office. One would expect them to understand the intent of the voters who sent them there and thus say no to more taxes, no to more spending and no to more borrowing. Instead, we have Republican leadership in the House that actually proposed raising more revenue by eliminating deductions on income taxes. They somehow claim that they are being faithful to their stated mission of fiscal conservatism by making you pay more money but at the present tax rates. They, too, have failed economics 101.

Any significant movement of wealth from taxpayers to tax consumers will not enhance prosperity; it will crush it, and it will breed dependence on a government that is fiscally out of control. The recipients will no doubt vote to re-elect those who gave them these payments.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2012).


Tomorrow never comes – Tea Party Nation

Tomorrow never comes – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Word is slowly seeping out for Washington about a grand bargain being worked out between Barack Obama and John Boehner


As we hear about the negotiations, the obvious question to be asked is, does Boehner and the Republican leadership in the House even have a clue?


What is going on that is so dangerous?


The Republicans are going to surrender on taxes.  According to published reports a deal is going to be made.  It is your typical Republican deal.  The GOP will agree to a trillion in new taxes and there will be spending cuts in the future.


When will the Republican Party learn that tomorrow never comes?


The Republicans have made these kinds of deals before.  In 1986, Ronald Reagan agreed to Amnesty for an estimated three million illegal aliens.  The deal was amnesty today and a sealed border tomorrow. 


Twenty-six years later the border is still not sealed. 


Now the Republicans want to make the same kind of deal. 


Wait, didn’t they do that last year?


Yes.  Yes they did.


Anyone remember the debt ceiling crisis of August 2011?


Anyone remember John Boehner’s great stroke of genius? 


He would give Obama $2 trillion more to borrow in exchange for a promise of spending cuts.  Either the Democrats would agree to spending cuts or automatic spending cuts would kick in.  These spending cuts disproportionately hurt national defense and other programs that Republicans allegedly believe in. 


What about the programs of the Nanny State?  Their growth would be slowed only a little.


That was last year.


Now that day has come and what is the GOP doing?  It is running around like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling and asking Obama for his terms of surrender.   Obama has already gone through that $2 trillion and is going to be asking for more.  John Boehner is ready to surrender on taxes that will not reduce the deficit but will only fuel additional government spending.


Does anyone in the Republican Party bother to looks at history?  George H.W. Bush broke his infamous “read my lips” pledge.  He went from 90% approval a little more than a year before the election to being soundly defeated by Bill Clinton. 


Breaking his “read my lips” pledge was one of the main reasons he lost. 


On November 6, John Boehner showed up at the Republican Victory Party in Washington DC.  He was ecstatic.  He would have another two years as House Speaker.  He said the Republicans were the party of less government, less spending and lower taxes.




Under John Boehner, we could say the Republicans are the party of gullible fools. 


We know what the plan to raise taxes will do to the economy.   For Obama and the Democrats, this is like winning the lottery. 


They knew raising taxes was such a bad idea they did not want to do it before Obama ran for reelection.  Now the circumstances are perfect.  John Boehner and the Republicans will go along with the Obama-Boehner Tax Hike.  It will give the Democrats perfect cover.


When the economy tanks even worse than it is already tanking, and Republicans want to run against the Great Obama Depression, the Democrats will be able to say not so fast.  You own this depression as much as we do.  Minutes after Obama and Boehner shake hands over the deal that video footage will be in the archives of the DNC to be used as ammo in attack ads against any Republican who challenges the Democrats on the economy. 


Even worse for Republicans, this deal with destroy the base. 


As reports come out that John Boehner and the House leadership are considering a grand bargain with Democrats, many rank and file Republicans are now openly talking about leaving the Party.


Christmas is coming early for the Democrats.  2014 is the Republican’s best chance for taking control of the Senate in the next two or three election cycles.   Yet the GOP is doing everything possible to depress its base and possibly shatter the party.


Meanwhile, the Obama, Pelosi, Reid axis of fiscal evil is laughing all the way towards a permanent Democrat Majority in government.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s fudged unemployment numbers – Washington Times


EDITORIAL: Obama’s fudged unemployment numbers – Washington Times.

Official jobless statistics aren’t working

It says a lot when a government jobs report is so out of line with reality that no thoughtful person can take it seriously. At best the new unemployment number is a fluke; at worst it is the product of partisan hacks.

The Department of Labor reported Friday that total nonfarm payroll employment increased by a net 114,000 in September. This poor showing — it reflects a 28,000 drop from the previous month — should have resulted in unemployment increasing by a tenth of a percent. Instead, it dropped by 0.3 percent to 7.8 percent. Call that Chicago-style math.

The official jobless rate is now down to around where it was when Mr. Obama took office, though still higher than what the White House promised it would be after blowing more than a trillion on stimulus programs. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch was among the first to call shenanigans on the dramatically favorable unemployment figure, echoing a general skepticism from all but the most credulous of Mr. Obama’s defenders.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said she was “insulted” by charges that there was something fishy going on. She then betrayed her own ignorance of the facts by saying the 86,000 jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) discovered in the last two months were private-sector jobs. They were actually government hires. Private-sector employment fell last month by a net of 5,000. Manufacturing jobs were down 16,000. Mrs. Solis threw her underlings under the bus, saying “the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS.” Perhaps these are the same BLS economists whom the Washington Free Beacon reports have contributed thousands to the Obama campaign.

This fudged figure allowed Mr. Obama to evade the sort of negative headlines that George H.W. Bush suffered in October 1992 when unemployment was 7.7 percent. Bill Clinton called it the worst economic record of any president in 50 years. Reuters described the 1992 report as “the final nail in the coffin” for George H.W. Bush. The same news service hailed Mr. Obama’s 7.8 percent number as “providing a boost to his re-election bid.” The liberal press seems to have mislaid its coffin nails.

There’s good reason to question the latest fantasy figure. The U-6 unemployment rate, which factors out low-paying, part-time jobs, remains lodged at 14.7 percent. The percentage of long-term unemployed is four times what it was five years ago. There are still 10 million fewer jobs than at the start of the recession. The number of new weekly jobless claims is up. The number of people on unemployment benefits and food stamps is at record levels. People know in their gut that things aren’t getting better. On main street America, “for lease” signs have replaced grand opening signs. Many malls are vacant and warehouses empty. Middle-class Americans see shrinking paychecks and a rising cost of living. A single massaged, distorted and misleading government datum doesn’t change any of that.


The left’s war on fiscal sanity. – Tea Party Nation

The left’s war on fiscal sanity. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

When it comes to liberals, there is no middle ground.  They do not simply have a policy disagreement on what we do with our money.   They are in active warfare against anyone who offers even a breath of sanity.

 The left has now picked out a new target in its war on fiscal sanity.

 What is it?

 Who and what would be a better question. 

 The who is Grover Norquist.

 The what is his no new taxes pledge.

 Norquist heads Americans for Tax Reform.  His pledge has been around since the eighties. It is a simple pledge that says the signer agrees not to raise taxes and not to close loopholes in the tax code unless there are offsetting spending cuts.

 What could be wrong with that?

 The left is obsessed with raising everyone’s taxes.  Recently in France, a leftwing party proposed a 100% tax rate above a certain income.  

 The left is in love with taxes and raising taxes.  It is almost an insane compulsion with them. 

 We saw the first shots in this war in the Republican debates last year.  The question was asked of Republicans, would agree to tax increases if they were a part of a package that included spending cuts?  The question was asked repeatedly of the Republicans.  Would you agree to a package that included tax increases if 90% of the package were spending cuts?

 The Republicans all wisely took a pass on that proposal.  

 Grover Norquist has been promoting his tax pledge for twenty-five years.  Democrats see it as the major stumbling block keeping many squishy Republicans from agreeing to tax hikes. 

 They have tried to get him to release Republicans from the pledge and the Democrats have been trying to demonize him for the pledge.

 Ben Nelson of the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback” attacked the pledge yesterday.  Nelson, one of the most worthless members of the United States Senate in the nation’s history, called the pledge a trap for higher deficits.  We all know Nelson’s IQ floats in the negative range but perhaps even a dim bulb such has him could figure out that if you spend more than you bring in, you will have deficits.

 The left has launched and all out, coordinated media war against the pledge.  They hope they can pressure squishy Republicans into abandoning the pledge.

 Democrats want Republicans to abandon the pledge and for good reason.  The last time a Republican abandoned a no new taxes pledge, it was George H.W. Bush and we know how that one ended. 

 Americans should demand that their Congressmen and Senators abide by the no new taxes pledge even if they have not signed it.


 It is simple.  Look at the track record of Washington.  The politicians in Washington cannot control themselves.  They are worse than the real housewives of Beverly Hills.  They spend, spend and spend.  It does not matter to them because they do not have to pay for it.

 If we have the great package many in the left want us to have, the result will be taxes will be raised and spending will not be cut.   Last year, despite the clear will of the people that spending be cut, spending actually went up by 3%.

 Our government is out of control.   We have leaders who lack the courage to do what must be done, namely cutting spending and bringing government back to the limited function our founding fathers envisioned. 

 New taxes will only make a bad problem worse.  Spending is the issue.   Our elected officials are the problem.

Mitt Romney, the Anti-Reagan – Tea Party Nation

Mitt Romney, the Anti-Reagan – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Mitt Romney can be described as many things.  Perhaps the best description of Romney is to call him the anti-Reagan.    Calling him the anti-Reagan is accurate in more ways than one.

 How so?

 Romney, if nominated, will be the most liberal Republican ever nominated to be the Republican candidate for President.   But his strategy has been the opposite of Ronald Reagan’s.

 In 1980, Ronald Reagan was the lone conservative running against a field of establishment hacks.    The moderate field was crowded and while Reagan was clearly favored because of his strong primary run in 1976, the moderate vote was split several ways.  By the time George H.W. Bush became the last man standing against Reagan, it was too late.

 Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the Republican Party.  He put conservatives in charge of the party and even today; if you want to be a Republican you must at least claim to be conservative.    While Romney was as far to the left as Obama when he was governor of Massachusetts, given the way he talks you would think he channeled Reagan every night he was governor. 

 This year, Romney has been the anti Reagan.  He was the lone establishment “moderate” in the field.  No, Jon Huntsman does not count.   He faced a field of real conservatives, not just faux conservatives like him.  There was Bachmann and Cain and there still is Gingrich, Perry and for the most part, Santorum.

 The conservative vote remains split.   Romney still has trouble getting more than a quarter of the vote.  Unfortunately the conservative vote remains split, while Romney simply pursues the “last man standing” strategy.  

 Some conservative candidates are staying in the race, even past the point where they can have any hope of winning.  Some of Rick Perry’s supporters are now even accusing Rick Santorum of staying in the race to be the stalking horse for Romney

 The damage done by a Romney nomination cannot be understated.  If Romney wins the nomination or even the Presidency, the Reagan revolution will be officially dead and gone.   If Romney wins, conservatives will have no control of the party and America will officially have two left of center parties instead of a liberal party and a conservative party. 

 If Romney wins, based on what he did as governor of Massachusetts, we would get eighty to ninety percent of what we would get in a second Obama term.    If the Supreme Court does not kill Obamacare, Romney will not.  He might tinker with it a little but Obamacare will remain.  When he was governor of Massachusetts, he promised he would not raise taxes yet raised them repeatedly.  Often those tax hikes were on businesses. 

 Romney is a disaster.  As a candidate, he is very much the anti-Reagan.   While Reagan was affable and genuine, Romney is so stiff that he makes Al Gore look like the life of the party.   Where Reagan was a natural politician, Romney is a disaster.  He lost to Ted Kennedy in a Republican blow out year.  He did not run for a second term as Massachusetts governor because he would have lost.  Four years ago, he lost to John McCain.

 Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for much of his life before he left the party.  He famously said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Party left me.  For us conservatives, we may be reaching that point where we look at a Romney Republican Party and say; this is no longer the Party of Reagan. 

 In 2008, the Republican Establishment gave us John McCain. Now, in 2012, they are trying to shove Mitt Romney down our collective throat. It would appear that the Republican Party is now leaving us.

 If that happens, it may be time for us to leave them.

Comedy Central – Tea Party Nation

Comedy Central – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on December 9, 2011

Politics, particularly as we head into the primary contests is sometimes referred to as the silly season. 

 Silly does not describe adequately describe what happened yesterday.  In fact, we might even call it comedic relief.

 What was so funny?

 Mitt Romney is trying to attack Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough.

 From The Hill:

 Mitt Romney launched a new web video attacking the conservative credentials of Newt Gingrich, who is emerging as his main rival for the GOP presidential nomination.

The ad out Friday hits Gingrich for comments he made about House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget plan. It splices together news reports and clips of political pundits reporting on comments Gingrich made on Ryan’s plan, which would turn Medicare into a voucher-like system for those under 55. In an interview Gingrich did shortly after he jumped into the presidential race, the former House Speaker criticized the plan, calling it “radical.”

 Mitt Romney?  He is kidding right?   Newt Gingrich is by no stretch of the imagination perfect.   Gingrich himself will tell you that.

However, Gingrich has a lifetime rating of 90 from the American Conservative Union.   Mitt Romney would have to move significantly to the right just to be liberal.  Mitt, the babydaddy for Obamacare is trying to call Newt not conservative enough?

Please, I need to stop laughing now. 

Mitt, the fan boy for the welfare state thinks Newt is not sufficiently conservative?  Remember, we are talking about the guy who ran to the LEFT of Teddy Kennedy when he was trying to win Kennedy’s seat in the Senate.

Mitt, or as one blogger likes to refer to him as Mitt for brains, is using surrogates to attack Newt.  People like John Sununu.  You remember him?  He was George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff. This is the same guy Newt hung up on when Sununu called to tell him that Bush was breaking his no new taxes pledge.  As Mark Levin pointed out on his show last night, Sununu’s singular accomplishment was to convince George H.W. Bush that David Souter was a conservative.   The fact that Sununu was the architect for Souter’s rise to the Supreme Court should be grounds to have Sununu forever banished from the Republican Party.

Is Newt Gingrich conservative enough?  Most people would answer that question yes.  The only people who doubt that were last seen at’s headquarters.

As for Mitt, he should really stop talking about politics and go back to what he does best.  That would be standing in front of a mirror and singing to himself his theme song, “The next time I fall in love, it will be with me.”

I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative


Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Image via Wikipedia

I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative.

Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn’t implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist‘s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they’d refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it’s Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”

Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan’s tax cuts couldn’t pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats — more than twice as much as Reagan’s spending on defense.

Reagan’s defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O’Neill’s domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn’t care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush’s defeat in the next election.

On CNN’s “Crossfire,” then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: “All the spin control in the world can’t undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes.”

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that “with his three words, (‘tax revenue increases’) Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign.”

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a “Reagan Democrat,” who said: “Bush says, ‘Read my lips.’ Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt.”

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party’s central defining issue — low taxes — and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, “He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don’t have to read his lips; we can read his record.”

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

Obama’s Delusions of Grandeur – Tea Party Nation

Obama’s Delusions of Grandeur – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Did Obama really think that a 2,000-page takeover of the nation’s healthcare system, passed late on the night before Christmas 2009 in the Senate was going to go unnoticed or unprotested?

Indeed, it was protested when a million Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. in September 2009 to demand its defeat.

The obscenely misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed because all the Democrats in the Senate voted for it, but in the House 34 Democrats in addition to all the Republican members voted against it on March 21, 2010. The President signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

By November 2010, political power in the House passed from the Democrats to the Republicans and in almost every election before and since Republicans have been the people’s choice. The House voted to repeal Obamacare and that bill sits idle in the Senate that is still controlled by Democrats.

The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case brought against Obamacare by 26 state attorneys general and various amicus curiae. It would be justice, indeed, if it were declared unconstitutional before the November 2012 elections. A new Congress controlled by Republicans would finish it off no matter how the Supreme Court decides, but Obamacare has had a dangerously disruptive affect on the economy.

I have been saying that Obama is a moron since well before it became fashionable to doubt his alleged intelligence. I saw little evidence of it and now, like many others, I am seeing evidence of a man under intense pressure and—to be generous—not handling it well.

We expect our presidents to be able to take the heat. It is the job description.

We learned belatedly that President Nixon was a raving paranoid, convinced that everyone was plotting against him when, in fact, he was plotting against them. He even kept an “enemies list”. The result was the Watergate scandal and it took impeachment proceedings in Congress to finally get him to resign. His successor, Jerry Ford, granted him a pardon and promptly lost the next election. Unfortunately for America, it was won by Jimmy Carter.

I was therefore not surprised when New York Post columnist, Michael Goodwin, made the same connection, writing “While there is no indication Obama is walking the halls of the White House late at night, talking to the portraits of former presidents, as Richard Nixon did during Watergate, the reports explain his odd public remarks.”

In a similar fashion, a recent column by David Limbaugh titled “Obama’s Behavior is Getting Worse” spells out the reasons to doubt his intelligence and judgment, while focusing on his personality and the price we all pay for his failures. Elections have real consequences.

What we know about Obama at this point is that he is a hardcore narcissist who will not take the blame for anything. This is an unpleasant trait in children, but we know, too, Obama is extremely immature.

We know that he spends taxpayer’s money on all manner of foolish things such as loan guarantees to Solyndra and countless other “Green” enterprises that yield either bankruptcy or slim returns. He threw billions at the nation’s unemployment problem without success and, incredibly, is insisting that Congress authorize more of the same.

We know that his “answer” or “fix” for any problem is to give another speech either before a joint session of Congress (usually reserved for a State of the Union speech or the declaration of war). on the campaign trail, or in a hasty press conference where any serious questions evoke the rather tiresome blaming syndrome.

Lately everything is the Republican’s fault even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years he held office and still control the Senate. The President’s own party is dragging its feet on his latest “jobs” bill.

For a President of all the people, he makes no secret of the fact that he has no love for people who use corporate jets, for businesses of any size, for bankers, for Wall Street, for physicians and their patients, and people who don’t want to join a union.

Most certainly, he has been actively engaged in bankrupting the nation, achieving in two and a half years (with the authorization of a Democrat-controlled Congress) a national debt that exceeds the total achieved by every prior President from George Washington to George H.W. Bush.

This reflects his penchant for self-indulgence which has been seen in his vacation choices, the lavish lifestyle he maintains in the White House, and his frequent visits to the golf course. His wife seems to think she is the National Nanny, forever hectoring everyone about what and how much they should eat. The administration tried to pass her off as someone who shops at Target!

The worst aspect of all of this is the contempt other nation’s leaders feel for him and, in particular, his judgment which impacts events worldwide. He is a great embarrassment for his inept handling of foreign relations. Ironically, after decrying George W. Bush’s conduct of the war on terror, he has adopted every single aspect of it.

His energy policies have favored no energy as his administration attacks coal, oil, and natural gas extraction and use. Unleashing the energy industries would generate thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue. Lacking adequate energy, America will begin to resemble a Third World nation.

In so many ways, his election has proven disastrous whether it is for the 14 million Americans who cannot find work or those whose homes have been foreclosed. It is a national shame that so many are on food stamps and other government handouts.

We have witnessed a mainstream news media that debased itself, first by ignoring his thin resume and then by ignoring to whatever extent is possible the damage he has done and continues to do.

All Americans must now wait out the election process until November 6, 2012. The good news is that his party will suffer greatly at the polls and America will be rid of Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2013.

The nation has taken wrong turns in the past and reversed course. It will do so again.

© Alan Caruba, 2011