I see Paul Krugman is reading his tea leaves again. What they are telling him is that America was hijacked. No, not by a band of jihadi terrorists, worse: the evil powers of the Right. He claims they exploited the atrocity committed by the terrorists, thereby turning 9/11 into a day of shame. So he no longer finds it worthy of our commemoration.

In which Dewey writes to our President

 

It’s really not so much the audacity of hope as it is arrogance

Dear Mr. President,

I’ve taken the time to listen to, and read, your remarks at the press conference last night. With all due respect (I just love that expression, don’t you?) instead of celebrating America’s dynamic union and seeking to partner with us to meet common challenges, there were times where you showed arrogance and were dismissive, even derisive. And – dare I say this? – disingenuous, as well

Knowing how you feel about Americans demonstrating this behavior abroad, I thought you might appreciate some feedback on how you came across, in the heartland. You know, from a real boots-on-the- ground American?

To that end, I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing a copy of your remarks  and highlighted in red areas of concern. Also, knowing that you dwell in that special, rarefied atmosphere that is  Washington D.C. I thought it might be helpful if I pointed out how a regular guy like me might perceive your remarks. To that end, I’ve taken the time to annotate specific instances where, again, with all due respect, you lost most of us. Due, specifically, to your arrogance, derisiveness, dismissiveness and/or disingenuousness.

I hope you have time to review my comments, because I think they could really help you win back those Americans who got off -or never got on -  your high speed rail to nowhere. If you care to get back to me with your responses, I’ll be happy to pass them on to my blog’s millions of readers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

July 22, 2011

Remarks by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

6:06 P.M. EDT

I just got a call about a half hour ago from Speaker Boehner who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations that we’ve been engaged in here at the White House for a big deficit reduction and debt reduction package. (See? Right out of the box, derisive. Most presidents would have said something like “ the talks broke down over disagreement regarding the size and scope of the tax increase.” What you said, if I may paraphrase, was “that arrogant little prick had the unmitigated gall to walk away!? From ME?!” See the difference?) And I thought it would be useful for me to just give you some insight into where we were and why I think that we should have moved forward with a big deal. (I presume you mean your big debt deal, not the one of our “dynamic union.” But unlike Obamacare, you’re not really holding all of the aces any more. Assuming that people should do things  your way just because  “I won” and “I’m the President” is,  frankly, rather arrogant.)

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. (I  think it’s fair to say that nearly all of the “discretionary” spending was in defense. That might be considered by some to be disingenuous.) We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.  We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, (As I understand it, you intend to preserve them in every way, just pretending to cut them by using the usual Congressional  accounting standards  comprised primarily of smoke and mirrors. Again, disingenuous. And  derisive, in that you think we’ll all swallow another mouthful of that hogwash.) made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way. (Certainly not before you plan on leaving office, sometime around 2034? I think you see my point, above. More hogwash.)

In addition, what we sought was revenues  that were actually less than what the Gang of Six signed off on. (just a nit, but we seem to have a subject-verb disagreement there – and LOL @ “Gang of Six!” I love it when you talk like one of the guys!) So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans (always good to in include the R-words in a “bipartisan group” but again, a little derisive) who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they’ve been working off of.  What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes — tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base. (Three problems: 1st, and here’s that disingenuous thing again, eliminating “loopholes,” and deductions is the same as raising taxes. And besides, blanket terms like “loopholes”  don’t set well with “the folks” after the debacle of  Obamacare. We want specifics, details. How about a little more of that transparency we heard so much about? we don’t feel good about deals cut behind closed doors, why don’t you go to the floor of the House and Congress and have C-span cover the “negotiations” in like you (disingenuously) promised.  2ndly, it’s a bit derisive to expect us to fall for the old “trust us, we’ll reform the tax code later and you’ll love it:” it’s the oldest trick in the book, and we aren’t that stupid. How about specifics? Honest, we don’t need our betters to process this for us.  3rd: read our lips, NO NEW TAXES –aka, “revenues.” There you go again, with the dismissiveness.)

So let me reiterate what we were offering.  We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary  (entitlement programs are not considered “discretionary” in your vernacular, are they?) savings as the Gang of Six.  We were calling for taxes (don’t you mean “revenues?”) that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed.  And we were calling for modifications (as opposed to “reductions” – do you see where I’m going here?) to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window (the window that doesn’t open until 2034; are you following me here? That’s totally disingenuous).  In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair (almost an oxymoron) deal.  If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue. (You really don’t get it do you? We’re spending too much: and BTW nobody before your administration referred to taxes as “revenue”. Generally you have to do something in order to generate revenue. Collecting taxes does not qualify as “doing something.” And here’s an interesting little bit of trivia for you:  tax “revenues” are currently the same % of GDP as they’ve  been historically. Government spending doesn’t increase GDP, that’s why it’s so damn hard to spend your way out of a recession. You do know that, right? As The Big Dawg’s loveable band of crazed Democratic operatives used to say: It’s the economy, Stupid! Say – you might want to see if Carville and Begala are available.)

But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party (that’s my BIG boy!) — and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups (we know, the usual suspects who are not used to being told “no” by anyone.) around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem. (I’m just wondering: what did you promise them down the line? Because we know they don’t take “no” for an answer, unlike Republicans. Maybe in the interest of transparency you could share that with us?)

It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal.  And, frankly, if you look at the commentary, there are a lot of Republicans  that are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done.  In fact, there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done. Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American people believe we should have a balanced approach. (Would that be the 2/3 of Americans in CNN’s poll who favor the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill? Or the 65% who are opposed to the Gang of Six plan? Or the other 80% that agree with you?)

Now, if you do not have any revenues, as the most recent Republican plan that’s been put forward both in the House and the Senate proposed, if you have no revenues at all, what that means is more of a burden on seniors, more drastic cuts to education, more drastic cuts to research, a bigger burden on services that are going to middle-class families all across the country. (Well no, that’s just disingenuous. There’s trillions of dollars to pick and choose from. Leave the seniors out of it, but feel free to eliminate the Department of Education – a misnomer if ever there was one. I also offer up the EPA , and then we could build hydro-electric plants too. And as far as “research” goes: any government funded function that invented the religion of global warming ought to have it’s heart cut out. Before the golden age of federal grants, college professors used to teach, conduct research – with grad students – and publish their results, all for the salary that the college could afford. Now they earn a princes income, they don’t teach, barely talk to students and spend most of their time “overseeing” the writing of “their” grant requests and research projects while  flying all over the world to “present” their “findings.” All of  which will be refuted by new research, equally non-scientific, in less than the span of a computer’s useful life. So I vote to ax federal research grants too. So far they’ve  just made people dumber. And don’t even get me started on “arts” grants. Pretty sure they’re not in the Constitution.)  And it essentially asks nothing of corporate jet owners, it asks nothing of oil and gas companies, it asks nothing from folks like me who’ve done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more.(Dude, you’ve run that one up and down the flag pole so often it’s getting threadbare. STFU.)

In other words, if you don’t have revenues, the entire thing ends up being tilted on the backs of the poor and middle-class families.  And the majority of Americans don’t agree on that approach. (See above for discussion on which “majority” we’re talking about.)

So here’s what we’re going to do.  We have now run out of time.  I told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. (That sounds presidential) We have run out of time. And they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.  (Yeah, see, that petulant crap? Not so much. It’s like the grand slam: arrogant, derisive, dismissive and disingenuous.) And they can come up with any plans that they want and bring them up here and we will work on them.  The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013. (Seriously? Did you really say that? Your petulance is beginning to sound like hysteria, boss.)

And the reason for it is we’ve now seen how difficult it is to get any kind of deal done.  The economy is already weakened. (Well, thanks for setting that straight. And for noticing.) And the notion that five or six or eight months from now we’ll be in a better position to try to solve this problem makes no sense.

In addition, if we can’t come up with a serious plan for actual deficit and debt reduction, and all we’re doing is extending the debt ceiling for another six, seven, eight months, then the probabilities of downgrading U.S. credit are increased, and that will be an additional cloud over the economy and make it more difficult for us and more difficult for businesses to create jobs that the American people so desperately need. (Somebody’s been getting coached in Economics 101! Good on ‘ya, Prez!)

So they will come down here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.  I expect them to have an answer in terms of how they intend to get this thing done over the course of the next week.  The American people expect action.  (Hey Bozo, the American people expect a President that knows a tax from a revenue, and can at least buy a damn clue in the leadership department. But to paraphrase a great man  “we go to battle with the President we have, not the President we wish we had.” And again, knock off the imperial BS, we’re getting tired of it.) I continue to believe that a package that is balanced and actually has serious debt and deficit reduction is the right way to go. (Duh) And the American people I think are fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodge their responsibilities. (We undoubtedly disagree on what the meaning of “responsible” is, but at least we agree on the concept.)

With that, I’m going to take some questions.(snip)

I hope you’ve found this to be useful, Mr. President. If you’d like, I’d be happy to highlight and annotate your Q&A responses to the reporters when you went off prompter. You will be surprised to know that some critics found that segment of the presser even more petulant, arrogant, dismissive, derisive and disingenuous. Some even tossed in  “childish” and “peevish.” But they were probably just grandstanding.

Just let me know, because I’m currently unemployed here in Detroit, the cradle of American liberalism and former beacon of capitalism. Since I wasn’t a member of the United Auto Workers union  at either of your car companies I can’t benefit from your generous gift to their union pension plan. Which is a long way of saying I have plenty of time on my hands to help you out.

In fact, since most of my life savings were held in Chrysler and Delphi preferred bonds,  which you seized for pennies on the dollar in order to give the major share to the union for their pension plans, I desperately need a job. (Just as an aside Mr. President, I’m still wondering how that transaction could have been legal. Because up until that point in time, preferred bond holders were considered to have contractual rights – embedded right in the bonds – that guaranteed them first rights of payment, specifically in the case of bankruptcy. But I guess you just waived that right? Because you’re the President? Do you see how people might consider that to be arrogant, derisive… well, you get the point. Anyway, I hope you don’t take this personally, but I’m still looking into the legality of that whole transaction. )

So, let me know if I can help you out in any other way. I’m here to serve.

I hope you get this debt thing ironed out in time to play a round of golf on Sunday. Tell the boys the mulligans are on me, all around.

Sincerely,

Dewey from Detroit

Cross Posted at Dewey From Detroit

That the scion of the Kennedy family could write something of this caliber for publication demonstrates proof positive that the Kennedy DNA ran out of functioning brain-stock after the JFK generation – and had started to thin out dangerously even towards the end of that run of progeny. Either that or he believes that everyone can be shammed as easily as the limo-liberals in his bubble world.

  

Immelt and the Won peer into the abyss that they’ve created. Together.

“The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway,” he told the group. “There’s no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution.”

That certainly sounds like our acting President. It smacks of his signature style; a patronizing, derogatory pronunciation that combines equal parts ‘harpy’ and ‘preachy’ with trite. It’s the same tone your over-promoted, over-his-head boss uses when he realizes he’s lost the support of the troops; the tone that sets your jaw hard, causing your teeth to grind down on each other.

But no, it wasn’t Obama. It was Jeffrey Immelt. GE’s CEO. Jack Welch’s hand picked successor. I still don’t get that. What was he thinking?

This was Immelt carrying Obama’s water at a U. S. Chamber of Commerce jobs summit last week, following the release of another “disappointing” – and no doubt surprising (perpetually) – jobs report that showed growth had ground to a virtual stand still.

Why, you may ask, would the CEO and chair of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness tell the group of business representatives that it fell on them to fix things? I thought the economy was one area the government took full responsibility for – outside of election years of course. So, why would Jeff be telling business people that it’s their responsibility to take more risks and – get this – bring back jobs that had been moved overseas. Excuse me? This from the Chairman of G -“we bring good things to China”- E?

But hey, I get it: there just aren’t a lot of other silver arrows in the old quiver right now. And since Immelt was named chair of the COJ, he has brought a few token jobs back on-shore, in order to avoid being nailed with the hypocrite designation when he preaches to other companies. The PR department got out in front of that one.

Immelt also announced that his Council on Jobs has “made a number of recommendations for changes in government policies that should help job creation, such as the executive order announced Monday asking independent agencies to rid their books of old and outdated regulations. Wow! That’s insightful; worthy of an executive task force comprised of a slew of top corporate executives and bureaucrats. I’m amazed it only took them 6 months to come up with that recession buster.

Obama clearly picked the right “jobs czar”  to “task” with the responsibility of  finding solutions to America’s unemployment crisis.

“Get rid of outdated regulations?” He has got to be joking. That’s the kind of thing you come up with when the economy is humming along like clockwork and you just don’t want to mess it up. It’s not what you do when unemployment is 9.2% (19% actual), GDP growth languishing under 2%, oil prices broaching another all time high and the Volt is still spinning its coal-fired wheels in the ditch.

But this sage recommendation came as result of the Council on Jobs report that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” Let the record further reflect that the President, Immelt and the rest of the Council tittered hardily at this excellent little joke on the American taxpayer.

While he held the Chamber audience captive, Immelt took the opportunity to further shill for the administration by lecturing Chamber members on why it’s critical to raise the debt ceiling, immediately! And yes, you can put him down as being in favor of “shared responsibility” in order to reduce our deficit. He’s all in with the other 80% of Americans who want their taxes raised.

In case you’re wondering, there is no compensation for being “Jobs Czar. ” Not directly anyway. Immelt’s executive compensation at GE is determined in large part by how well GE’s bottom line does. The payoff for all of his heavy lifting around Washington will be reflected in stock options to be cashed in later. I’m betting he’s hoping to cash in much later, when the Republicans are once again in charge and stop talking about additional taxes on the fat cats who make “more money than they need.”

Because after all, and let me make this crystal clear: it’s not about the money. It’s about the amount you get to keep.

If you would like to review all the ways GE’s bottom line has benefited through its ties to the administration, go visit Sadhill’s post : “Bankrupt-Bailed Out-Government-Owned-Tax-Free-Overseas-Job-Outsourcing GE”  and check out the compendium at the end.

Who says you can’t buy love?

 

The way forward? You do a 180 and run like hell in the other direction. WTF, dude?

Cross-posted at Dewey From Detroit

Aside from the fact that I don’t see anywhere in the UN charter a mandate to protect cockroaches (although it does so routinely), I will say this; I do believe that in Communist Bolivia under the rule of Evo Morales, bugs, indeed, have the same rights as humans.

How shall we reason with anti-Semites? I suppose we could look to history for some insight into this, as this was one of the dilemmas Chamberlain dealt with. Perhaps we could follow his lead and give them a country in exchange for leaving ours alone. Israel, perhaps?

Why do we mourn our fallen heroes?

In the words of Harry S. Truman,

Lest We Forget

“Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid . They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.”

A1C Zac Cuddeback was shot in the head by an Islamofascist in Germany last week. Yesterday he made his final return home to O’Fallon, Illinois.  He will be laid to eternal rest today, March 12, 2011. Officiating will be Father Bill Hitpas, who also baptized Zac just 21 years ago at St. Nicholas’s church.

He was welcomed home last evening in a procession that made it’s way from nearby Scott Air Force Base to Zac’s uncle’s house in O’Fallon. The processional route was lined with 1000 flags  provided by the VFW and placed by local townspeople.

Also lining the route as Zac came home were his soldier colleagues from the Air Force Base, a local Boy Scout Troop, and hundreds of people who just wanted to turn out to express their condolences and to offer a small thanks to Zac. Instead, to their surprise, Zac’s family thanked them for coming. These are the kind of people you’re likely to find in fly over country.

The somber military procession began  at the Air Force base and rolled slowly through town. It was headed up by fire and emergency trucks from surrounding towns and over 200 Patriot Guard Riders who  have made it their mission to accompany fallen heroes to their final resting place, and to shelter and protect the family from the likes of viral protestors from Westboro Baptist church.

Patriot Guard Riders and first responders

    

Earlier last week people, churches, businesses and schools all over town honored Zac in any way they could. To some people it might seem a perfunctory gesture and even inconsequential, especially in comparison to the sacrifice made by Zac. But imagine if Zac were your son, brother, grandson, husband, nephew or friend. You would feel otherwise. You would feel the small gesture was quite profound. And you would be grateful.

Because you would know that sometimes simply recognizing great sacrifice is all we can do.

Also in advance of yesterday’s funeral cortege, soldiers and locals turned out to plant flags along the entire funeral route.

They began in the cornfields outside of town,

continued into town:

and through the suburban style neighborhoods

     

to the home of Zac’s uncle, where he laid last night.

 

If you’ve seen Taking Chance, the story of Lt. Col. Michael Strobl’s mission as a military escort accompanying the body of a fallen Marine home to his family in Wyoming, you might better understand the sense of honor and dignity that overwhelms everyone involved in delivering a fallen soldier home.

There is nothing inauthentic in this journey. People turn out simply to bow their heads and thank the selfless soldier who gave his own life to protect our values and way of life. You form the natural sort of bond that we do with our guardians. It is not one that can be manufactured of – or from – cheap emotions. Rather, it is an indelible linkage to something in our life that’s good and true.  It is at once simple and profound: a bond that requires no words to explain why we fight, and why we must.

Lest we forget.

Photos via Boots on the Ground

UPDATED WITH NEW PHOTOS:

New photos filed by Boots on the Ground from today’s funeral for American hero A1C Zac Cuddeback. No words required. (and yes, Westboro slugs did show up, but were contained by townspeople and Patriot Guards so as not to disrupt the memorial)

Rest in Peace Brave Soldier

Cross posted on MOTUS: Michelle Obama’s Mirror and Dewey from Detroit

Steven Forbes has an op-ed in Politico this week in which he notes the obvious: Barack Obama repeating Jimmy Carter’s mistakes. His focus is on our MIA energy policy, and he’s pulling no punches:

The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster.

While there’s little to disagree with in Forbes’ opinion piece, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes. It inspired me to update my 2009 Welcome Back Carter flatsimile video to capture some of the new similarities that have cropped up between JC an BO since then:

But still, there’s much more. Carter, like Obama, faced a drastic erosion of the value of the US dollar and a persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of US dependence on foreign oil – a situation that his administration did nothing to correct.

Obama’s deficit is a bit more complex. There’s the continuing dependence on foreign oil, a foreign trade policy favoring foreign countries, and – the elephant in the Capital Rotunda – runaway federal spending. And just like Carter’s, the Obama administration is doing nothing to rectify any of them. It’s almost as if he’s following Carter’s spent entrails on purpose.

Here are a few of the other uncanny similarities between these two presidents that I couldn’t squeeze into my video:

ENERGY POLICY (NOT)

In mid-1979 Carter advanced his long-term energy program. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels.

Obama favors much of this policy, although for different reasons: Jimmy Carter didn’t yet know about globull warming when he put his policy together. He therefore didn’t know about the damage that oil, shale gas, and coal would inflict on the planet. So naturally they’re not included in Obama’s list of domestic fuel sources. Neither is nuclear: too scary. So that leaves solar, geothermal, that new-fangled concept – wind… and mice on treadmills.

BUILDING A DEFICIT

Carter began his administration with a $27.7 billion deficit, 4 years later, it had grown a whopping 113%, to $59 billion. Obama’s 2011 deficit is forecast to hit $1.5 trillion. That’s trillion, my man. And still growing. Match point, Obama.

GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES

Jimmy Carter, in his wisdom, created the departments of education and energy; Obama has found additional uses for both departments, including getting out the vote, WTF (winning the future) and shutting down the oil industry.

APPEASING THE HAVE-NOTS BY GIVING THEM STUFF

Carter, in a misguided attempt to soften America’s stance towards third world dictators, determined it was necessary to remove America’s “colonial outpost” in Panama and hence gave the strategic and economically important Panama Canal – built and paid for by American taxpayers – away.

Obama has softened America’s stance towards everyone. And it appears that he wants to give Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of California back to Mexico.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE

Carter fought for a National Health Insurance, but, alas, did not find support for it in Congress.

Obama fought for National Health Insurance, “found” support for it in Congress, but, alas, not so much amongst the American people.

UNFORTUNATE FAMILY MEMBERS

Both Carter and Obama had radical-liberal mothers, and embarrassing brothers.

Stanley Ann Dunham in her “art” days.

AUTO BAILOUTS

Both Carter (1979) and Obama (2009) bailed Chrysler out. While they rebounded in less than 3 years last time around, this time they’re owned by an Italian bicycle company.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Both presidents have resided over awesome unemployment rates. It’s a little hard to compare unemployment rates under Carter to prior presidents, as his administration was the first to remove the “chronically unemployed” from the reported numbers. And even with that little trick, the official rate leveled out around 7.5% at the end of his administration. Obama’s had that number beat 6 months in. And we don’t even knows what bureaucratic tricks have been applied to keep unemployment below 10%?

INFLATION

Carter’s presidency presided over chronically high inflation, with the national rate hitting 13.6% in 1980, the year he lost to Reagan. With the unemployment rate also running high, Carter bested the “misery index” that he had mocked his opponent, Jerry Ford, about in 1976. It stood at 13.5% when he beat Ford, and rose in each subsequent year, settling at 20.8% when he lost his bid for re-election.

Thus far, Obama’s been lucky. Inflation hasn’t spiked along with unemployment to create the kind of stagflation that generates a really high misery index. But with corn still being subsidized to make ethanol (an inherently less efficient fuel), look for everything related to corn to continue to inch up: meat, eggs and any food that uses corn syrup as a sweetener. Likewise, with our insanely missing-in-action energy policy, combined with continuing bans on all types of domestic drilling, and unstable supply and prices from the Middle East (not to mention the new carbon standards that the EPA has deemed to impose on businesses) look for the price of EVERYTHING to go up. There are few commodities or services that don’t have energy costs embedded in their price.

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

The three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred on Carter’s watch. The partial core meltdown (completely contained, with no resulting deaths or injuries) followed by media panic and environmentalist histrionics resulted in the de facto shuttering of the nuclear power plant industry in the U.S.. There has not been one newly commissioned nuclear plant since. In fact, 120 plants on the drawing board at the time were cancelled. Of the 104 plants operating today (or in the case of Watts Bar, still being constructed) none were commissioned after 1974. We are decades behind other industrial countries in every aspect of nuclear power. The power source once touted as “too cheap to meter” is now too expensive for a utility to even propose to the Public Service Commission.

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occurred on Obama’s watch, and it appears that he intends to follow Carter’s lead by doing his best to shut down the oil industry too. We’ll all be off-grid soon. As I said before, it’s almost uncanny.

So there you have it. Still not a comprehensive list of all the similarities between these two candidates for “worst U.S. President, ever.” For example I didn’t mention that Chris Matthews was a speech writer in the Carter Administration, did I? And now, 30 years later, here he is – still a mouthpiece for the Administration. Only now, he actually gives the speeches for the President; nightly on Ms.NBC.

Chris Matthews reads the SOTU from TOTUS for POTUS

And while Carter had Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor to guide him on all critical international issues,

Jimmy Carter with Zbigniev, back in the day

Obama has his daughter, Mika Brzezinski, carrying water every day on Morning Joe.

And sometimes, Dad still stops by to help with the really heavy lifting.

(In case you don’t know what mess ZbIgniev was cleaning up after, you simply must watch Niall Ferguson dismantle an entire panel of Ms.NBC talking heads.)

Cross-posted on DeweyfromDetroit

In a new weekly event named in honor of Laura Ingraham’s book of the same title I’m issuing an appeal to celebrities like Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo and Sheryl Crow who feel compelled to share their wondrous knowledge of global warming, economics and the dangers of genetically modified seeds with their adoring fans.(Or in the case of Tom Cruise, his vast knowledge of Psychiatry and psycho-tropic drugs, derived from his years of study at the school of Scientology.)

 

SadHill News reports on the latest abuse of presidential powers: Obama administration drops defense of anti-gay marriage-law:

(Reuters) President Barack Obama has determined that a federal law that barred gay marriages was unconstitutional and told government lawyers to stop defending it in court, the U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday, a move that will likely anger some conservative voters.

A U.S. judge had ruled that a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) banning gay marriages was unconstitutional, but the administration had appealed, stating that it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged.

Apparently our Community Organizer in Chief and part time Constitutional Law professor has deemed it necessary to usurp the powers of the Supreme Court, thereby saving us thousands of dollars. All part of his deficit reduction plan. (See Buh-Bye sidebar, to see how we’re doing so far.)

Also, be sure to check out SadHill if  you’re a Monty Python fan.