Rewind to May of 2010:
Obama toured the facility and said “it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. ”
You can watch the full Obama speech here:
The true engine of economic growth will always be, companies like Solyndra. Will always be America’s businesses.
So that’s why even as we we cut taxes and provided emergency relief over the past year. We also invested in basic research. In broadband networks. In rebuilding roads and bridges. In health information technology. And in clean energy.
‘Cause not only would this spur hiring by businesses, it would create jobs in sectors with incredible potential to propel our economy for years. For decades to come. There is no better example than energy. We all know the price we pay as a country as a result of how we produce, and use, and yes waste energy today. We’ve been talking about it for decades. Since the gas shortages of the 1970′s.
Fast forward to present time:
President Barack Obama is standing by his support for renewable energy after Solyndra Inc., a maker of solar panels that received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, shut its doors, a White House spokesman said.
Solyndra suspended operations and plans to file for bankruptcy reorganization because it couldn’t compete with larger rivals, the closely held company said in a statement yesterday.
Obama had touted Solyndra as part of the U.S. effort to aid development of alternative energy sources, and its failure was cited by Republican lawmakers who say the subsidies are misguided. It’s the third U.S. solar company to go under in a month, as plunging panel prices and weak global demand drive a wave of industry consolidation.
So much for Obama’s grand experiment. So much for his all seeing insight. Indeed when one looks at Obama’s record on job creation there seems to be plenty more where that has come from. 1100 more examples of hope given and then cruelly yanked away.
Personally I believe that we not only CAN do better than this, we MUST. But not with Obama. It’s not the economy, stupid, it’s the frackin’ President himself.
The evidence is mounting more than ever to suggest that President Obama is morphing into failed Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
The latest comparison was made by dour New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in her column on July 30. This is some of what she said:
“Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already ‘neutered’ the president,” as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.
As one Democratic senator complained: ‘The president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent.’ (Not to mention a jilted lover.) Another moaned: ‘We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.’”
Dowd who once loved Obama is now souring on her liberal-media-created sensation and now she believes that the comparison of Obama to Carter is a valid one.
I have been saying that Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter for some time now, so I was pleased to see that others are observing the same similarities. When even Maureen Dowd is talking about how Carter-esque Obama looks you know there some meat to the comparison.
The above article provides a nice list of comparisons for those who have not been following this meme.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivers a devastating speech on the floor of the Senate calling out Obama for threatening to veto the Boehner plan should it make it to his desk. Well, actually, Obama isn’t even willing to make the threat himself and is instead hiding behind the skirts of some unnamed advisers. This is nothing but a completely transparent attempt on Obama’s part to shift any blame for a veto to someone other than himself should it actually come to that.
But McConnell correctly calls Obama out as being willing to veto the country into default, an action that he himself has described as having devastating consequences for not only the U.S. but the entire world, all for purely partisan political purposes. So Obama apparently cares more about his own chances for re-election than he does for the good of the country. Being a Liberal, I am not surprised.
Have a look at McConnell’s speech:
More constitution shredding by the Democrats. They accuse the Republicans of shredding the Constitution on a regular basis but it is they who regularly run afoul of its plain and clear intent. They do this by selective reading thereof. Dishonest and self-serving interpretations designed to meet their needs du jour.
The debate over the debt ceiling is no exception. They are selectively quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to further their own political gains and shredding the Constitutional protections it provides in the process.
Their latest theory seems to be that a single cherry picked phrase from the 14th Amendment somehow gives Obama the power to ignore the law and place himself as the supreme authority over the national coffers. To wit they cherry pick the following:
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
So what exactly is the plain meaning of the highlighted phrases? Simply put, all this says is that there is a national debt and that people cannot simply argue it out of existence. It simply says that the United States Government is authorized to take on debt to meet it’s obligations. That’s it. Period.
This says nothing about who determines when and how much debt can and should be taken on by that government. The problem here is the Democrat slight of hand which is at play. Note that no one has questioned the “validity of the public debt“. No one is arguing that the government cannot take on such debt. No one is arguing that the debt does not exist. And most assuredly no one is suggesting that the debt which has already been taken on should not be repaid with full interest.
It is a straw man argument meant to distract honest citizens from the reality of the situation.
So if this passage is not indicating who is in control of what debt is taken on and when, then how are we to know who the Constitution invests that power in? Well, the Constitution includes a passage to address that very question. This is a passage that the Democrats are selectively ignoring when they make this argument. There is a fifth clause to the 14th Amendment which quite clearly addresses this point:
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This seems quite plain in its meaning. It is the Congress who is invested with the authority to control the public debt via appropriate legislation. Legislation like that which establishes the debt ceiling that the Democrats seek to circumvent and whose actions are clearly in conflict with the plain meaning and intent of the text of the 14th Amendment.
Once again we see the Obama Administration for what it clearly is: a rogue and out of control group of Constitution Shredding Cowboys with no respect for the rule of law or for duly authorized Constitutional authority.
It is another shameful day for Democrats.
But it’s not clear that Congress can constitutionally impose a debt ceiling on the President. The debt limit we have now is the legacy of a 1939 law designed to allow the Treasury flexibility to borrow up to a certain limit. But Geithner and a number of constitutional scholars have questioned whether Congress can prevent the president from paying obligations that the government has already incurred. That’s because a passage in the Fourteenth Amendment—designed to prevent Southern politicians from repudiating Civil War debts—stipulates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” What exactly that means is a complicated legal question, but as Jonathan Chait writes, the clause was intended to prevent politicians from using the threat of default for political leverage—which is exactly what Republicans are doing now.
Even after being called to task by Congress Obama is continuing his illegal slaughter of innocent civilians in Libya. As has been pointed out by many this is a completely illegal war of aggression with no defined goals and no exit strategy. It appears that the power hungry Obama is murdering civilians solely because he can. Perhaps he is giddy with glee over the thought of the mangled corpses he has created.
Our purpose for being in Libya is completely unclear. We all know that Libya did not attack us on 9/11/2001, Obama has allegedly already dispatched Osama bin Laden although literally no proof of this has ever been shown, so our mission is completely gratuitous and without merit.
Obama should be impeached for war crimes and crimes against humanity because of this outrageous abuse of Presidential powers.
In previous posts, I’ve gone into great detail about the various ways that the Obama Administration is violating the law, breaking promises made by candidate Obama, and ignoring prudential restraints on executive power. For now, I merely invite readers to ask themselves whether dropping ordinance on a country 132 times in three months constitutes war or hostilities – or neither, as Obama claims.