forgottenliberty.com

"Obama's supposed mistress, Vera Baker"

When I checked the Drudge Report this morning, a headline caught my eye about an Obama cheating scandal.  Naturally, I clicked on the link and read the article.  The report claims that Obama is having an affair with a woman named Vera Baker.  The story is being reported by the National Enquirer so of course it has no credibility on it’s own unless there is some verifiable evidence to support it, but it did get me thinking.  During the 2008 campaign there were numerous comparisons made between Obama and John F. Kennedy and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy symbolically passed the torch of the Kennedy legacy to Obama.  So if Obama is symbolically a Kennedy, shouldn’t we expect him to act like a Kennedy in his personal life?  Is so, then we would have to expect Obama to have an affair and cheat on his wife.  I hope for his wife and kids sake this story is just some made up tabloid garbage, but if it’s not, it would just add to the electoral mess the Democrats have been creating for themselves this November.  Another Democratic President caught up in a sex scandal?  I don’t know if our country could handle that right now.

Many people have criticized President Obama for being a little self absorbed.  It is true that he refers to himself and his accomplishments a lot when giving speeches, but a speech at  the Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington may take the cake.  While giving a pitch for his health care plan, he refers to a letter he received about a woman who had died of breast cancer.  We don’t know her name, because Obama either chose not to use it, or he forgot it.  I don’t know why he would not at least use her first name.  However, he was not using a teleprompter, so I think he forgot it.  What is surprising about this woman, is that she was buried in an Obama t-shirt.  While this may seem a little disturbing to some, Obama almost seems proud of it.  According to Byron York of the Washington Examiner,

Many observers have noted that the president often seems extraordinarily self-referential. It’s all about him, they say. But even those critics might be a little taken aback by the “buried in an Obama t-shirt” remark. Is it really that much about him?

If Obama had left out the being “buried in an Obama t-shirt” part, this woman’s story would have been more effective in making his point, but if Obama is truly self absorbed, it would be impossible for him not to include this little piece of information about an unnamed woman.  Watch the following video for yourself and come to your own conclusion about Obama’s level of egocentricity.  Besides the t-shirt part, notice at the end of the clip how Obama denies that the American people have rejected his health care plan.  He claims that Americans actually want his health care plan, they just don’t like the “sausage making” process in Washington.  While Obama is correct in stating that people don’t like how things are done in DC, he is incorrect in stating that Americans want his health care plan.  In fact, 61% of Americans want Congress to drop health care.  I think he is in denial about this.  Of course, that goes along with being self absorbed.

I read a column today by progressive columnist E.J. Dionne.  In his column, Dionne describes why the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case was an example of legislating from the bench.  He also defends Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  His column is a perfect example of (oxymoron alert!) liberal logic.  For instance, he claims that,

The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Two things strike me as illogical in this statement.  The first is the issue of precedent.  Progressives love precedent when it supports something they approve of.  They feel if they can get a court ruling in their favor, they have locked in their policies for generations.  The Supreme Court usually defers to precedent, but it is not bound to do so.  The only thing the Court is bound by is the Constitution.  If the Court believes a previous court made a wrong decision, they can choose to correct it.  This has happened many times in our history (usually in favor of Progressive policies), and to act like it never happens, is revisionist history.

The second issue in this statement that defies logic is

President Bush, with the help of Congress, ran up gigantic yearly deficits in the the hundreds of billions of dollars.  President Obama on the other hand, has managed to dwarf Bush’s record deficits.  Despite the good game Obama has been talking the last few days about cutting the deficit and being fiscally responsible, his new budget for the 2011 fiscal year still contains another record deficit.  I know what every liberal is thinking, “Yes, this new budget still has a big deficit, but Obama said he cut out 20 billion dollars.  At least he is moving in the right direction.”  It’s true, Obama claims he cut 20 billion out of the new federal budget.  But if this budget actually increases the total amount of spending, is it truthful to say that 20 billion has been cut?  Being truthful has not been one of Obama’s strong points so far in his presidency.

This new budget will total 3.8 trillion, which is 250 billion more than last years 3.55 trillion dollar budget.  Obama claims to have cut 20 billion, but he is actually raising the amount of government spending by 250 billion.  How is this being fiscally responsible?  How is this cutting the deficit?  If I told someone that I was going to get my finances under control by cutting back on the amount of money I’m spending in one area of my budget, but then increased the amount I’m spending in another area, am I really cutting anything?  Of course not!

It goes without saying that this budget has

During his State of the Union address last night, President Obama did something extremely unusual.  He criticized and insulted the Supreme Court while the justices were sitting directly in front of him.  Then, after insulting them, he called on Congress to “fix” the Court’s “mistake”.  Justice Alito, breaking the tradition of justices not responding to what the President says, made a face, shook his head and mouthed the words “not true”.  This was a new “Joe Wilson” moment.  Even though Justice Alito didn’t loudly accuse the President of lying as Wilson did, it was still shocking.

For those of you who are unaware of what Obama was referring to, it was the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down laws that, in a nut shell, made it illegal for businesses to run political ads during political campaigns.  The Court explained that businesses have a right to free speech just as individuals do, and to bar them from making political statements was a violation of the 1st amendment.  I wrote a post last week where I explained why Obama was going to take on the Supreme Court over this issue.  He sure fired a big shot last night!

I don’t believe any President has ever criticized the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  The Supreme Court is an important co-branch of government, and for Obama to attack them to their face in front of the entire Congress and nation shows arrogance and disrespect.  He also seems to have a misunderstanding of how things are supposed to work.  He called on Congress to right the supposed wrong done by the Supreme Court.  However, if Congress passes another law barring businesses from having free speech, it will just be struck down again as unconstitutional because the Court has already ruled on it.  The only way to get around it would be a Constitutional amendment.  I think it’s interesting that Obama didn’t call for this.  In my opinion, it means he doesn’t want an all out battle with the Court, he just wants to score some cheap shots.  That seems childish, doesn’t it?

Update

Jake Tapper from ABC is reporting that a Supreme Court historian (who was an enthusiastic Obama supporter) believes the justices may not show up to the next State of the Union address. From Tapper’s blog,

“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”

Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.”

Wow, not only has Obama turned off a majority of the American people, but he may have turned off the Supreme Court.

Here is a video of Obama criticizing the Court during the State of the Union.

President Obama is positioning himself to introduce a second stimulus bill.   However, because of the obvious failure of the first stimulus bill, this one will be called something else.  Based on what he has been saying for the last week, I’m guessing it will be disguised as a job bill and will probably be introduced during his State of the Union address.  If he doesn’t bring it up at the State of the Union it will be within the next month because the economy will most likely turn around this year.  Because of this, Obama wants to pass something soon so he and his fellow Democrats will be able to claim credit for the economic upswing.

Dan Mitchell from the Cato Institute has made a video describing why this second stimulus bill will be detrimental for the long term health of our country and economy.

Here really nails it, doesn’t he?  I guess we’ll have to wait and see if Obama announces a new “Jobulus” bill on Wednesday’s State of the Union address.