According to Obama, the Republicans in Congress are the reason that we are in this mess. Obama is hopeful that the American people have a very short memory and won't pin the blame where it belongs.

Speaking in the key election state of Iowa, Democrat Obama portrayed Republicans as blocking progress on the economy.

"We could do even more if Congress is willing to get in the game," he said in Peosta, Iowa, referring to job creation measures he is pushing for in free trade, payroll taxes and road construction.

"The only thing that is holding us back is our politics. The only thing that is preventing us from passing the bills I just mentioned is the refusal of a faction in Congress to put country ahead of party, and that has to stop," Obama said. "Our economy can't afford it."

"America is going to come back from this recession stronger than before, that I'm convinced of, I believe that," Obama said to applause. "And I'm also convinced that comeback isn't going to be driven by Washington."

Let me get this straight. We, as a country, are going to recover and bounce back stronger than before. The only thing holding us back is politics/Republicans. All we have to do is pass some bills. But, "...that comeback isn't going to be driven by Washington"?

If the comeback isn't going to be driven by Washington, how can Washington magically fix it?

Besides being incoherent; I can't believe that anyone would actually buy in to this considering what Obama said in reference to the percentage of his personal accomplishments he has achieved.

Rolling Stone 10-28-2010
- Obama

You look at all this, and you say, "Folks, that's what you elected me to do." I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I've got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we've accomplished.

All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we've seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people's wages and incomes have stagnated. So it's not surprising that a lot of folks out there don't feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won't take effect right away, so ordinary folks won't see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we've accomplished a huge amount.

Obama said the impact of his two biggest pieces of legislation won't be seen for another couple of years. It's not quite been one year since the interview. Obama is blaming the Republicans for the weakened economy before his own economic efforts are set to bear fruit. Remember the two year timeline was set by Obama himself.

Obama has a predictable pattern of blaming everything negative on the other party. If the economy was already doing poorly a little less than one year ago; how is it the Republicans fault now? The Republicans didn't control a majority in the House until the November elections last year. The Rolling Stone interview was in October of last year.

Unless the Republicans have a time machine and are trying to confuse Obama "Terminator Style" none of what he has claimed makes any sense.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The Dream Act didn't make it through Congress. But that doesn't stop those who want to implement it by any means necessary.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Thursday that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety.

The new policy “will not provide categorical relief for any group” and “will not alleviate the need for passage of the Dream Act or for larger reforms to our immigration laws,” Ms. Napolitano said.

People in deportation proceedings stand to benefit most from the new policy. The new enforcement priorities also make it less likely that the government will begin such proceedings in the future against people who have no criminal records and pose no threat to national security.

The action would also bolster President Obama’s reputation with Latino voters as he heads into the 2012 election. Just a week ago the leaders of major Hispanic organizations criticized his record, saying in a report that Mr. Obama and Congress had “overpromised and underdelivered” on immigration and other issues of concern to Latino voters, a major force in some swing states.

This activity is prohibited by the United States Constitution. This is a prime example of the law being applied to one group and not the other. Both groups committed crimes, but because of an arbitrary decision the law is upheld for one group and not for the other group.

You have to pay very close attention to what Napolitano says. She stated that it won't provide "categorical relief" for any group. This is a very dangerous thing to say. If there were no "categorical relief" for any group; why issue any new enforcement priorities.

The article goes on to say, "People in deportation proceedings stand to benefit most from the new policy." If you have overstayed your visa you have committed a crime; you now have a criminal record. Of course this will be played out in the media as a race issue, when in fact, is has nothing to do with race at all. It has to do with the law actually being upheld in a constitutional manner.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, denounced the new policy.

“The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants,” Mr. Smith said. “The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. Officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”

Lamar Smith is right. Look at what Obama said in his speech to the National Council of La Raza.

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions," Obama told the National Council of La Raza.

I pointed this out last month. We actually have a sitting president who shows a willingness to disregard the United States Constitution; now that willingness has become action.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This is a great column. It's unbashful, unafraid and straight to the point. The best part; it's entirely true.

Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters

A few weeks after the U.S. city of Detroit was ravaged by 1967 race riots in which 43 people died, I was shown around the wrecked areas by a black reporter named Joe Strickland.

He said: ‘Don’t you believe all that stuff people here are giving media folk about how sorry they are about what happened. When they talk to each other, they say: “It was a great fire, man!”’

I am sure that is what many of the young rioters, black and white, who have burned and looted in England through the past few shocking nights think today.

It was fun. It made life interesting. It got people to notice them. As a girl looter told a BBC reporter, it showed ‘the rich’ and the police that ‘we can do what we like’.

If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.

read the rest here...

This is the most complete and concise explanation of the UK rioters, or rioters in general, that I have ever read.

In a previous article I touched on some of this, but not to the extent that Max Hastings does.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

There are riots in the UK causing quite a bit of "disorder". The interesting part is when a few of the looters were questioned by the BBC's Leana Hosea.

Two girls who took part in Monday night's riots in Croydon have boasted that they were showing police and "the rich" that "we can do what we want".

The pair who were drinking wine looted from a local shop at 09:30 BST on Tuesday morning, spoke to the BBC's Leana Hosea.

I don't know about you but I've never had an issue with someone who is "rich" stopping me from doing anything and the police (if stopping people) are usually preventing unlawful activity. I'm not quite catching on to what it is that they have a problem with. Who are these rich people telling them what they can and can't do? What exactly are the police stopping them from doing?

In the video the two women go on to say...

PROTESTERS: Its the government's fault...Conservatives. It's not even a riot. It's showing the police we can do what we want. That's what it's all about. it's about showing the police we can do what we want and now we have.

BBC: Do you reckon it will go on tonight?

PROTESTERS: Definitely...hopefully.

BBC: But these are like local people. Why are you targeting local people...your own people?

PROTESTERS: It's the rich people. It's the people who have businesses and that's why all of this has happened, because of the rich people.

There are plenty of people with businesses that aren't rich. I think the answer is that the "rich" people are not giving away their property and the police are trying to keep looters from taking it.

This is what happens when the government educates children and tells them that they are "owed" certain things. Once someone starts believing that it's OK for the government to take from some to give to others; it's not long before the recipients start taking from others. It's the illogical nature of a nanny state --followed to its logical conclusion.

This reminds me of a 90s flick "SLC Punk".

To be an anarchist in Salt Lake City was certainly no easy task, especially in 1985. And having no money, no job, no plans for the future, the true anarchist position was in itself a strenuous job.

This scene is coming to a town near you sooner than you imagine.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Is the US government "Too Big To Fail?"

As I see it, Too Big to Fail means "Too Big to Function" I think the term was coined to encompass a situation where poor decisions land an abnormally large group of people in a bad situation. The answer (at least so far) has been for the government to make certain economic concessions to benefit failed companies. With this type of system in place there is absolutely no incentive for the heads of business to asses risk because the government is already committed to propping the company up regardless of how the business is run. No free economic model can function without risk.

It seems, as was the case with General Motors, that there is a belief that once an entity becomes large enough it will heal itself. There is this belief, before the time of collapse, that "There's someone for that", "There's someone who can fix that", or "They wouldn't do something that would run us into the ground." Of course, this is all based on the belief that those at the top are competent and honest. In government, like in large businesses, people are only held accountable for a limited amount of time. There seems to be a culture of getting what you can while you're there, and letting the next guy deal with it.

Right now our government is operating in this manor. There is little to no risk for politicians who make poor economic decisions. Most people are either too far removed from the issue, or don't even hear about it. Thank the major legacy news outlets for that.

We are in the situation we are because the government has inserted itself in the economy to the extent that arbitrary government actions have a greater economic effect than organic market forces. Once this happens it is nearly impossible for the market to correct. But it seems that the government is quickly loosing its ability to prop up the system. The real crash is coming, until that happens there will be no "recovery."

The US is not too big to fail.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!