The Voice of Reason: It's the End of the World as We Know It

After the Supreme Court issued its decision today on Obamacare, a song lyric suddenly popped into my mind:

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Today, our Supreme Court essentially decided that pretty much any aspect of American life can be controlled by Congress and our President -- as long as it's couched in a tax. In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided that neither Congress nor the President have the power under the Commerce Clause to force Americans to engage in commerce. However, they decided, Americans can be taxed if they don't engage in that commerce. The difference is subtle in its wording, but not different in its outcome.

So, if Congress and our President decide that it's in the best interest of the country for all people to be members of health clubs (since the cost of being unhealthy is passed on to other Americans in the form of higher health care costs), then Congress and the President can simply pass a law taxing those who aren't members of health clubs.

If Congresss and the President decide that everyone should eat six servings of fruit and vegetables a day, they can simply tax those who don't eat six servings of those foods every day.  Congress can also decide that we should all buy the Chevy Volt or another American-made electric car and tax us if we don't.

Simply put, there really is no limit now to what Congress and the President can order us to do.  The door has been propped wide open for Congress and our President to control our lives.

Given that our President recently issued an Executive Order ignoring immigration laws passed by Congress and a previous President, essentially creating new law, today's ruling is even more troubling.  If a President can ignore laws securing our borders and if he and Congress can force us to engage in commerce by taxing us if we don't, then our President can pretty much control our lives.

Today's ruling from the Supreme Court clearly changes our world as we know it.  And I don't feel fine.





 

Voice of Reason: Top Five Reasons Why You Should Vote for Obama

With millions of Americans out of work or underemployed, record numbers of our fellow citizens on foodstamps and our country $5 trillion more in debt in just the past three and one-half years, it's difficult to find reasons why anyone would vote to reelect Barack Obama.

But for every coin, there are two sides, and I believe there are reasons why some voters would cast their ballot to keep President Obama in office.  Here are the top five reasons why I believe someone would vote to reelect Barack Obama:

He's a person of color. 
America prides itself as a country of equal opportunity and electing a person of color in 2008 signified an important shift in this country's racial history.  Notwithstanding that under his leadership the economy has gotten worse with millions more are out of work or underemployed, some voters will simply vote for him again because of his skin color.

You don't work, don't want to work and want the government to support you.
Under the President's leadership, the number of people on unemployment insurance, disability and food stamps has exploded.  Unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks, nearly two full years, and the government is now paying to broadcast ads encouraging thousands more to sign up for food stamps.  More people than ever before in our country's history are looking to our federal government for a check to support them and their families.
 
You work for a business that thrives during a terrible economy.
Some businesses thrive when the economy is terrible. With so many people unemployed and underemployed, businesses such as discount stores (people looking for bargains), rental property agencies (people losing their homes and having to rent), and grocery stores (people cooking at home and not eating at restaurants as much) are thriving.

You don't drive a car and don't use electricity.
Under President Obama's leadership, traditional, cheap and reliable sources of energy, including coal, will soon be phased out in favor of more expensive, less reliable energy sources such as solar and wind. President Obama has also discouraged drilling of our domestic oil resources and the completion of the Keystone Pipeline, which will result in fewer barrels of domestic oil and oil from our neighbor, Canada, being processed in our refineries.  Less supply means higher prices, but if you don't drive, you may not care.

You are an illegal immigrant, or the family member of an illegal immigrant. 
Last week the President essentially ordered immigration authorities to ignore laws on the books for many illegal immigrants between the ages of 16 and 30.  If you want to live in this country and are here illegally (yes, some of these illegal immigrants vote), this President is working hard to allow you to live here legally -- irregardless of the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by previous Presidents.  In addition, the Obama Administration has quit cooperating with the State of Arizona because that state is actually trying to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.



As you can see, there are people who would benefit from a second term of Barack Obama -- those who don't work and don't want to work, those whose job security is improved during a terrible economy, those who don't use electricity or drive, and those who are in this country illegally or have family members who are here illegally.  In addition, there will be voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama just because of his skin color.

But for the rest of us, those who vote for a President because of his record and policies instead of his skin color; those of us who work hard and want to continue working; those who work or own businesses that thrive only when the American economy is thriving; those of us who pay our hard-earned bucks for gasoline and use electricity in our homes; and for those us who want comprehensive immigration reform and not just an election year political ploy, the choice is very, very clear.

Anybody but Obama. . .Mitt Romney.





   






 

    

The Voice of Reason: Questions I'd Like the Lamestream News Media to Ask Our President

As a trained journalist, I am amazed at the "free pass" that the vast majority of our lamestream news media have given the President over the past three and one-half years.

To be clear, I don't claim to have the high-brow intellect of Brian Williams of NBC News, Diane Sawyer of ABC News or Anderson Cooper of CNN, but I am bright enough to ask a few tough questions of our President.  Brian, Diane and Anderson, if you have the opportunity to interview the President, please feel free to steal these questions, unless you feel that asking tough questions will somehow diminish your journalistic "integrity."  You might want to take notes:

• Mr. President, your administration did not approve the upper part of the Keystone Pipeline despite years of review but are now supporting the lower half of the pipeline and pledging to speed the approval process for only this part of the pipeline.  Without supporting the upper half, essentially aren't you essentially supporting a pipeline to nowhere?
• Mr. President, when you were elected, you said that you would have the most transparent administration in history.  Since that time, Democratic leaders in Congress passed your health care legislation without even giving members of Congress or the public time to read it.  You also have recently claimed Executive Privilege for documents that pertain to the Fast and Furious investigation.  What do you say to the American citizens who remember what you said about transparency and now see what you have done and are doing?
• Mr. President, in your autobiography, you talked about listening to Marxist professors and attending socialist conferences, in addition to using drugs "enthusiastically" while you were in college and high school.  How have these experiences shaped your views as President?  What did you learn from these Marxist professors and socialist conferences?
• Mr. President, you have continued to blame your predecessor, George Bush, for the economy.  At what point will you begin to accept blame for this economy?
• Mr. President, if you aren't reelected as President, how long should Americans blame you for the economy in the next Administration?
• Mr. President, you have provided a birth certificate indicating you were born in Hawaii, but why did your publisher tout the fact that you were "Kenyan born" for over 15 years?  Did you provide this information to your publisher as is the case with almost all authors?  If you didn't provide this bio, why wasn't this mistake corrected until the months before you ran for President?
• Mr. President, while running for President and when you were first elected, you were vehemently opposed to housing prisoners at Gitmo, using enhanced interrogation techniques to obtain information and other practices that you deemed to be inhumane and not in line with American values.  As President, you now have a "kill list" of people who are suspected of being terrorists. How can killing suspected terrorists be more humane or more in line with American values than housing or interrogating a live known terrorist?
• Mr. President, on two different occasions in 2011, while talking with Unvision, you discussed how the separation of powers outlined by the Constitution would prevent you from ignoring laws passed by Congress in order to allow illegal immigrants stay in this country. Earlier this month, you announced that you were going to do just that -- allow certain illegal immigrants to stay in this country.  What changed in the past year in the Constitution or in laws passed by Congress to make you change your mind?
• Mr. President, when you issued your Executive Order allowing certain immigrants to stay in this country, weren't you essentially creating new law?  What part of the U.S. Constitution allows you to issue new laws through Executive Order superceding those laws already passed by Congress and signed by a previous President? Did you not take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States?
• Mr. President, now that through an Executive Order you have allowed an estimated one million illegal immigrants to stay in this country and work, what would you say to millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed and desperately need those jobs currently being taken by those who are in this country illegally? What would you say to the thousands of American students who have applied to colleges and universities, only to be turned down because of space limitations, while illegal immigrants have been accepted?
• Mr. President, you have attended more fundraisers than your past three predecessors combined at this same point in their administrations. What do you say to those out-of-work Americans who wonder if you are spending more time trying to be reelected than working to help them put food on their tables by improving this economy?
• Mr. President, ads produced by your campaign have attacked Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital, a venture capital firm.  While Bain risked the dollars of private investors, did your administration essentially do the same thing -- except with taxpayer dollars -- in loans and investments to firms such as Solyndra?  How many of these firms failed and how much in taxpayer dollars have been lost?
• Mr. President, since the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the State of Arizona has the right to check immigration status during traffic stops, your Administration has ended programs of cooperation with this state in enforcing immigration laws.  Isn't this vindictive, and don't these changes signal to those living illegally in Arizona that the federal government is not going to enforce immigration laws vigorously?   
• Mr. President, what leading economic indicators have improved since you were inaugurated in January 2009?

Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but it seems to me that someone in the mainstream news media should be willing to ask tough questions.  After all, these are the types of questions that millions of Americans, including this one, want answered.

The Voice of Reason: Politics, Not Science, Driving Obama's Environmental Policy

When protecting the environment, one would think that our government would rely on science to drive policy changes.  What we've learned recently is that politics, not science, is currently determining policy changes in the U.S.

A few weeks ago, I attended an environmental conference sponsored by the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.  The key points I learned at this conference from the various state and national experts were very alarming:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently deciding what policy they want to implement and then find scientific studies to back up what they believe.
• The EPA weights various environmental studies, which allows them to consider multiple independent studies as "junk science" when those studies oppose what the EPA wants to prove, while pointing in some cases to a single study that agrees with the EPA.
• In some cases, the EPA has considered one part of a scientific study as "junk science," while touting another part of the same study that might agree with what the EPA wants to prove.

In short, President Obama's EPA is deciding the policies it wants to change, and then finds science to back up what it wants to do. The reverse should be occurring -- science should be driving the policy.

One example of EPA Science running amock is the recently finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule addressing mercury emissions from power plants.  If allowed to be implemented, this new rule will put electric reliability at risk in the U.S. and cost electric ratepayers $10 billion or more, with little if any benefit to public health. In justifying its policy change, the EPA's claims of benefits from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of “particulate matter” below the standards that the EPA has already determined are necessary to protect public health.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/233361-mercury-rule-could-upset-energy-supply-should-be-reset

So what impact will MATS have on the mercury in our air?  Negligible.  In fact, if every U.S. coal fired power plant were shut down, it would result in a reduction of mercury of less than .5%.  The other 99.5% of the mercury in our air would not be affected.  Sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, human cremation, subsea vents, geyers and power plants in other countries would continue to put the majority of mercury in our air. http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206210125
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html

Although the impact on public health would be negligible, the effect on an industry employing a few hundred thousand Americans directly and indirectly could be catastrophic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

"The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson (head of the EPA) shot us (coal industry) in Washington," Cecil Roberts, president of the UMWA, said in an interview in April on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219919-mine-union-chief-coal-industry-could-suffer-same-fate-as-osama-bin-laden

In the interview, Roberts said that new coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The problem is that this technology, known as carbon capture and storage, "is not commercially available," Roberts said.

At a time when millions of Americans are out of work or have quit looking for work, can we really afford these policy changes by the Obama Administration that will cost ratepayers $10 billion or more, and put our nation's electric reliability and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk?

Voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions in November.

The Voice of Reason: President's Order Clearly Not Constitutional

On Friday, President Obama announced that his Administration would no longer deport young immigrants who arrive in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spend at least five continuous years in this country.  These immigrants will be able to stay in this country and obtain work permits under certain conditions (i.e., not having a criminal record), according to the President's plan.

In a nation of laws, the President is telling the Executive Branch of our Federal Government to ignore immigration laws passed by Congress. This is unconstitutional, according to at least one President.  Which one?  Read on to find out.

The framers of the Constitution designed our Federal Government with three equal branches.  The role of the Legislative Branch, our Congress, is to pass laws, which are then enforced by the Executive Branch, which is controlled by the President.  The Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch of our government, has the authority to rule whether or not the laws passed by the Congress are Constitutional. There is a clear balance of power, which ensures that no one branch has too much power.  For the President to suspend one law, essentially means that he is creating new law, which he does not have the authority to do under our Constitution. At least one President agrees wholeheartedly:

"With respect to the notion that I could suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed and I know everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know we have three branches of government.  Congress passes the law.  The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the law.  There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration syustem, that for me through simply an executive order ignore those mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

Which President said this?  Barack Obama.  In a town hall meeting with Univision just last year, President Obama said this when asked about whether he could just suspend deportations of students.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jun/16/picket-video-obama-2011-i-cant-stop-deportations-e/

Once again, the President's actions and words are much, much different.  If a President can completely ignore any one law passed by Congress, what would prevent him from ignoring other laws or creating new laws? 

Americans should be outraged and very scared.  The framers of our Constitution are rolling over in their graves.

A President Who Will Say or Do Anything to Be Re-Elected

On Friday, President Obama announced that his Administration would no longer deport young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spent at least five continuous years in this country. Under this new policy,  those immigrants would be allowed to stay and apply for work permits if they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, such as graduating from high school or serving honorably in the military.

Many illegal immigrants and the family members of those immigrants are probably cheering the President's new policy.

In reality, they should be very leery of a President who is pandering for their votes.

Consider the facts:

• Shortly after he was elected, President Obama promised to address comprehensive immigration reform.  He has done nothing, although he has had bi-partisan support to address this issue for the past three and one-half years.
•  The Obama Administration has deported twice as many illegal immigrants in his first term than his predecessor, George Bush, did in his first term and considerably more than Bush did in his second term.  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-record-high-deportations-draw-hispanic-scorn/ 

So the same President who deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants is now the champion of Hispanics?

Last month, President Obama announced that his position on gay marriage had "evolved" to the point that he now supports it.  Of course, he also said that it was just his "personal" opinion, meaning that he certainly isn't going to expend any political capital to advocate for this issue on a national policy level.

Earlier this month, when labor unions were making a stand in Wisconsin, President Obama sent a tweet to his supporters, instead of campaigning on the ground, providing funds from his war chest or doing anything substantial to support their efforts.

For three and a half years, President Obama did little or nothing to support gay people, Hispanics  and union members, all of whom were vital to his 2008 election.  Now, as the November 2012 election draws closer, he will be pandering to these groups, saying or doing anything to try to garner their votes.

I learned a long time ago that anyone who is my friend only as long as I can do something for him or her is not really my friend.   I actually consider these folks to be worse than my enemies.  These so-called friends will forget me as soon as they get what they want.

President Obama is just such a fair weather friend to these voting groups, forgetting them for years on end and only remembering when it's advantageous for him.

  

Obama's Actions Compared to His Words

Earlier this week, President Obama tried to blame the soaring deficits on his predecessor, George Bush. 

"It’s like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner — martini, all that stuff — and then, just as you’re sitting down, they leave and accuse you of running up the tab."
-- President Obama, June 2012.

Really?

Actually, President Obama, it's like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner -- martini, all that stuff -- and then you sit down, order two more huge steaks, a couple of lobsters and a round of martinis for everyone at the bar and then leave, leaving the bill to your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This is the more appropriate analogy, Mr. President.

President Obama's talking points about the steak dinner shows just how out of touch with the truth he really is.  The truth is that the debt has increased more in Obama's three-plus years than it did in Bush's eight years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

But this isn't the only whopper our Campaigner in Chief has espoused in recent weeks about his spending habits.  

"My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years."
-- President Obama, May 2012

Unbelieveable.

The truth is that even if you give President Obama every possible benefit of "Democrat fuzzy math" -- including moving all outlays in FY2009 made by the Obama Administration to the Bush Administration -- Obama increased spending by a whopping 24 percent.
 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/even_with_nuttings_math_obama_1st_term_spending_up_24_vs_bushs_last_term.html

Obama has not been truthful with Americans about his spending habits and intentions, almost from the day he was elected.

“Today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."
-- President Obama, February 2009

Three years and $6 trillion in additional debt later, President Obama continues to try to make uninformed voters believe he's not a big spender. 

Let's hope that the majority of voters take the time to search for the truth, instead of taking anything he says at face value.

Obama's Energy Policy Displays His Naivete

I have a good friend who believes that renewable energy sources, including solar and wind, should be powering America.  Based the President's policies and actions, Barack Obama apparently feels the same way.

In a perfect world, the sun and wind would power our planet, but these views held by my friend and President Obama display a real naivete about how electricity is generated, the cost of the various energy sources and the limitations of storing energy.

Currently, coal, nuclear and natural gas are the principal sources that generate America's electricity.  Fossil fuels and nuclear power produce 87% of our electricity, while renewables generate 13%. Within the renewable category, the majority -- 8% -- is generated by hydroelectric power, which means that solar and wind provide no more than 5% of America's electric generation mix.

So, let's say for the sake of argument that America shifts its electricity generation mix from fossil fuels to renewables, as President Obama seems to favor. 

As enticing as this might sound, how would we store electricity when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing?

The fact is that there is no efficient way of storing electricity in large quantities, so either the electricity is used when it's generated, or it cannot be used.  It simply doesn't stay in the wires until it's used.  There are some promising technologies on the horizon, but they aren't economically feasible or proven just yet on a large scale.  In reality, these technologies are probably decades away from being ready for the marketplace.  http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_energy_how_to_store_excess_electricity/2170/

Solar and wind power are not reliable forms of energy.  Sure they're reliable when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and the wind isn't always strong enough to turn a large turbine.  Although solar panels can generate electricity on cloudy days, they cannot generate electricity when there is no sun -- when it's night.  Wind power can pick up the slack at night, but only when the wind is sufficient to turn a turbine.  Most wind generators produce power only between 40% and 60% of the time.

So, if electricity cannot be stored and solar and wind power can only be counted on to generate electricity about half of the time, what are our options?

Well, America could simply learn to do without electricity for hours on end when the renewable energy sources aren't available, but that's not realistic in a society driven by energy. 

The only other option is to rely on fossil fuel and nuclear power plants when the renewables aren't able to generate electricity.  In other words, if you want electricity you would have to pay for the renewable sources AND back up sources of electricity. With renewable energy sources already more expensive than coal and nuclear power plants, customers would have to pay at least three or four times what they are paying now to support the renewables AND back up sources of energy. 

The cost to generate electricity using coal or nuclear power stations is about four cents per kilowatt-hour, while wind power costs eight cents and solar costs 22 cents per kilowatt hour. (Note: This is the cost to generate the electricity, not the cost actual charged to customers.)
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

My friend recently opined that "the Earth is worth the investment."  Again, this is a very naive view of the world.  If America were to move towards significantly more renewables to generate electricity (i.e., moving to renewables providing 50% of our electricity), then our electricity rates undoubtedly would be the highest in the world, which would impact our ability to compete in the global marketplace. 

If you think America lost a lot of manufacturing jobs in the past few decades, double or triple our energy costs by switching to renewables and you'll see America lose what's left of its manufacturing.  Energy just happens to be one of the principal costs of manufacturing and for that matter, most business and industry.

Does this mean that America shouldn't encourage renewable energy sources?  Of course not.  America has always been a land of innovation, and the government should support research into these areas. 

But American cannot make renewable energy affordable by implementing stifling regulations on fossil fuels in order to bring the costs of fossil fuels and renewables closer together, and our government should not be picking energy winners and losers as a venture capitalist (i.e., Solyndra).  The marketplace is the most efficient and effective way of selecting which energy sources should power our country.  Just as the marketplace determined that the gasoline-powered automobile developed by Henry Ford would rule transportation and the iPod would dominate portable music, the marketplace should determine which energy sources are available to customers.  The marketplace always has spurred innovation in America.

In the unrealistic Utopia where our President and my friend would like to live, energy is supplied by the sun and wind, and energy is cheap and prevalent.  However, we all live in the real world and the decisions we make about our energy sources determine whether or not Americans can put food on the table.

Bad Week for President Obama

When it rains it pours.  We've all heard this expression. Well, President Barack Obama needs an umbrella, because bad news keeps pouring in.

A week that started out with a devastating jobs report ended with the President stating that the "private sector is doing fine."  If those were the only two pieces of bad news or communication missteps to occur it would have been a bad week for the President, but when you throw in former President Bill Clinton contradicting the President's ads and talking points, a rebuff of big government in Wisconsin, serious questions about potential leaks in the Administration that threaten national security, and the Republicans raising more money than our Campaigner in Chief, you're talking about a bad week of epic proportions.

First off, to call the May jobs report "disappointing" would be a gross understatement.  According to this report, which was released released June 1, 69,000 jobs were created. This means that the recovery has slowed or stalled, which certainly isn't good news for the President's re-election chances.  On top of the dribbling of new jobs announced in the report, we also learned that the unemployment rate has inched upward.

A few weeks ago, the President's re-election team began floating ads attacking Republican nominee Mitt Romney's business record at Bain Capital.  This week, Bill Clinton torpedoed those ads, describing Romney's business record as "stellar."  Later in the same week, the former President stated in an interview that raising anyone's taxes at this time could further stall the economy, contradicting the Obama Campaign's goal of increasing taxes on the rich. Or course, Clinton seemed to retract his comments a bit in later interviews, but the damage had already been done.

On Tuesday, voters in Wisconsin rebuffed Big Government, Big Labor and the Democratic Party, which collectively tried to recall Governor Scott Walker.  The President, showing his support of Big Labor, one of his staunchest supporters, solidly put his significant political muscle behind their cause, sending a tweet of support.  Yes, a tweet. Instead of heading to Wisconsin to campaign on their behalf while he was in the area last week, he sent no more than 140 characters to his Twitter followers.  One has to believe that union leaders and members across the nation, already frustrated with the President's lack of support for the Keystone Pipeline and other energy projects that would create tens of thousands of union jobs, are going to stay home in droves this November.

It would be poetic justice if union leaders send a simple tweet of support for the President, instead of supporting his campaign with millions of dollars, organizing their members to canvass door to door, and encouraging their members to man phone banks for the President's re-election campaign as they did last time around.

Now to the leaks.  The Obama Administration simply cannot keep a secret. Information about the attack on Osama Bin Laden's compound that should have been classified was shared with the world, so much so that a doctor who helped us find Bin Laden is now facing essentially a life sentence. In late May we learned that the President has a "kill list," in a story that was placed in the The New York Times, a pro-Obama paper if there ever was one.  On June 1, another story appeared in the same newspaper.  This time the article detailed the Administration's cyber warfare against Iran. All of these pieces were seemingly released for one intention -- to make the President look like a tough guy.  In doing so, the Administration has given various enemies our gameplans for attacking them. 

You know this must be a serious issue when California Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, angrily said this week that the Obama Administration has had an "avalanche of leaks" that "puts our national security in jeopardy."  Both Democrats and Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the number of leaks that have occurred from within this Administration.

This week, we also learned that Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee had raised $76.8 million in May, compared to President Obama's and the Democratic National Committee's total of $60 million.  For a President who has attended more fundraisers than his past five predecessors combined over the same time period in office, this has to be sobering news.

In the "what the heck is he smoking or drinking category," the President commented late this week that the "private sector is doing fine."  He was immediately attacked by anyone who knows anything about the current economy -- an economy that has experienced unemployment above eight percent for 40 consecutive months.  The private sector is doing fine? 

Now to the coming weeks.  I have a strong feeling that more bad news will be coming, perhaps as early as Monday.  The Justices' tough questioning of the Administration seemingly tipped their hands.  Most judicial experts believe that all or part of the President's single legislative accomplishment will be overturned. The American people don't want it, and now the Supreme Court will essentially rule that the President has tried to circumvent the Constitution. This will be a rebuke even stronger than the one received earlier this week in Wisconsin.

Add in Attorney General Eric Holder's continued stonewalling on the Fast and Furious investigation, the push by both Democrats and Republicans to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Administration leaks, anticipated weak jobs reports through at least the summer/early fall, and a soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court ruling on the Administration's suit against Arizona (immigration laws), and you have the strong opportunity for continued unnerving news for the President.

The President may want to hold onto his umbrella.  It's been raining bad news and it looks as though it may continue to pour.

Our Private Sector Is Fine?

In a press conference earlier today, President Obama said that the "private sector is doing fine."

One has to wonder what planet the President is on -- or what he has been smoking or drinking.  The American economy is in the tank, millions of Americans are out of work, millions of Americans have stopped looking for work, the number of Americans on food stamps is at an all- time high, and the private sector is doing fine? 

President Obama went on to say that the problem with our economy is with hiring in our state and local governments.

"Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in," he said.

So, let me get this straight, Mr. President.  The American economy is faltering because we don't have enough people working in state and local governments?  And the federal government should provide more dollars to these governments to hire more employees at a time that our nation is nearly $16 trillion in debt?

Perhaps the President was watching the NBA playoffs earlier this week instead of the Wisconsin election returns.  Wisconsin's recall election essentially pitted those who want smaller government and realistic salaries, benefits and pensions for state workers against those who want a bloated government with skyrocketing union pensions, benefits and salaries for state workers.

The voters wanting smaller government won.  The bloated government/pro-union/pro-state workers voters lost.

Our private sector will be fine, Mr. President, when we elect a leader who understands how the American economy works.  Your words today, Mr. President, as well as your actions of the last three and a half years, have shown us that you clearly are not that leader. 

A Steady Hand Can Right the Economy

This past week I had the opportunity to go sailing for the first time in several years.  In just a few minutes, all of it came back. . .how to turn the motor to steer the boat out of the marina. . .how to turn the boat directly into the wind to raise the mainsail. . .how to trim the sails. . .how to use the wind to propel the boat through the water.

For most of the afternoon, my wife steered the boat, while I handled the lines and sails.  I noticed that she would often move the tiller in the wrong direction, which resulted in our sails flailing in the wind.  During these times, I watched as the knot meter moved from five to four to three to two to one.  The boat nearly stopped dead in the water before she turned the tiller in the right direction,  allowing the sails once again to fill with wind. 

It dawned on me while out on the water that a sailboat is a lot like the American economy. Our economy only needs to be steered in the right direction with a steady hand before it begins moving and gains momentum.  But with too many turns in the wrong direction, our economy loses speed and is soon dead in the water.

President Barack Obama is clearly an inexperienced sailor, having never been the captain of anything before he was given the tiller of the world's largest economy.  Instead of allowing our sails to fill with wind, he's seemingly done everything possible to take the wind out of the sails.

His health care law has created a lot of uncertainty with business and industry, as companies do not know how much this new law will eventually cost them on their bottom line.  As a result, business leaders are afraid to make large capital investments or to hire additional workers.

The Obama Administration's commitment to raising taxes on job creators has also taken the wind out of our sails. Those who create jobs are leery of hiring additional workers until they know if, when and how much their taxes will increase. 

The Obama Administration's overregulation of our domestic fossil fuel resources -- from coal to oil and natural gas -- has slowed down or stopped new investments, because energy companies don't know if or when they can expect a return on their investment, or if the EPA will simply try to shut them down with new regulations. 

In short, the policies adopted by this administration have been more like an anchor than a sail, and the American economy has suffered because of the President's inability to captain our proverbial ship.

With America in the midst of an economic storm of unemployment and our ship essentially dead in the water in terms of economic growth, it's vitally important that we have an experienced captain at the helm. We desperately need a captain who clearly understands the economic sails of capitalism that power America.  One has to believe that someone who has actually grown a business and governed a state would have the experience necessary to right our ship.

That captain clearly isn't Barack Obama.

News Media Selectively Report the News

Earlier this week, news media coverage of a major issue appeared in almost every newspaper and on nearly every television and radio broadcast.  The extensive  coverage pointed out the unbridled arrogance of former President George W. Bush when he was in office, providing readers, viewers and listeners with a number of stunning examples.

One example cited was Bush's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board.  Although permitted by the Constitution to make appointments while the Senate is in recess to allow key positions to be filled, the President made these appointments while the Senate was in pro-forma sessions.  Bush clearly stretched the limits of the President's Constitutional power, pushing it further than the framers of the Constitution ever intended.

Another example revealed by the news media was Bush's "kill list," a list of suspected terrorists selected for execution by drones.  Without any trial by jury or evidence presented to a judge, the President and his team determined who would die and who would live.  If family members or other community members were found with suspected terrorists, Bush and his group of advisors often decided that they were up to no good, too, and ordered a drone strike, killing both the potentially innocent and those strongly suspected of guilt.  Dead men, women and children tell no tales.

Did you happen to see any of this coverage?  You didn't?   

The fact is that there has been little coverage about these issues because the President who has displayed this unequaled disregard for the Constitution, as well as American and international laws, has been Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.

Yes, it was Obama who made the recess appointments while the Senate was still convening.  Yes, it was Obama who has developed an ever-expanding list of suspected terrorists to kill, justifying the killing of potentially innocent people who just happen to be near the suspected terrorists.  It was also the Obama Administration who closed the gap between Church and State, telling Catholic institutions that they must provide birth control converage as part of the new health care law.

It was the Obama Administration that stretched the limits of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, telling Americans that they must buy health insurance and would be penalized if they didn't.  For the first time in American history, the Commerce Clause is going to be used to penalize Americans for not participating in commerce?

This President and his administration also selectively decided who would be the winners and the losers in the bailout of General Motors, protecting the United Auto Workers and the dealerships of those who supported his election, while distributing pennies on the dollar to shareholders and bondholders and closing GM dealerships for most of those who strongly supported John McCain in the 2008 election.  Even in its selection of the "green" companies to support with stimulus dollars, the Obama Administration just happened to pick those who supported his candidacy the strongest.  What a coincidence.

But you haven't heard much about any of these issues because the mainstream news media wanted Obama to be elected, and wants him to serve another four years. 

But if it had been Bush who had done even half of these shenanigans, you would have seen extensive coverage on the front page of every major newspaper and news magazine, the lead story on every major television station's broadcast, and the main topic of every major radio station's news coverage. The mainstream news media, as well as the Internet, would have been abuzz with coverage and comments about how Bush was acting more like a dictator than a President. 

Sadly, the same Americans and members of the news media who vehemently condemned Bush for approving enhanced interrogation techniques on live prisioners are applauding Obama for having the courage to kill suspected terrorists and innocent people who may be near suspected terrorists.  The same voters and reporters who vehemently opposed the ability of the Bush Administration to obtain a wiretap quickly from a single federal judge in order to listen in on the phone conversations of suspected terrorists now undoubtedly support the Obama Adminitration's selection of who will be killed, without any legislative or judicial oversight.

To me, this is the height of hypocricy. It's past time for the news media and the electorate to quit giving this President a free pass in terms of accountability and to begin holding him to the same  standard as his predecessors.