Keeping an Eye on President Obama

The 2008 Presidential Campaign in the United States is over and done with, and a new president has been elected and sworn in - Barack Obama. But just who is this guy? We do know that he is a great public speaker, but what really are his inner thoughts and motivations? And to the extent that he has an ideology, exactly what is it? This page will keep tabs on this new guy by reporting significant news on his words and actions, with a few opinions thrown in. This will include news on his administration if that news reflects on Obama's thoughts, ideology and character. Some of the info on this page will be written by me, the author of this web site, but the rest will be written by others. On this page I will keep a continuing count of the number of more-or-less harmful actions and/or words that Obama uses, a count which I will call a "Strike Count". Actions and/or words which I consider good will get a gold star, for which I will keep a "Gold Star" count. By the way, given Barack Obama's highly-skilled use of the English language, which includes an ability to "please" those who are not in his ideological camp, such as conservatives, I will be somewhat reluctant to assign Obama a gold star for words which appear to be conservative, or at least neutral. Given his established very liberal voting record, I do not quite trust the guy. On the other hand, his words which are liberal in nature I will take at face value, so it will be more likely for me to assign him a "strike" for such words. Of course I will always keep in mind that "actions speak louder than words".

(This web page on President Obama is not to be construed as indicative of any favoritism on my part for our past president George Bush. Although I did not maintain a web page dedicated to George Bush when he was president, if I had done so he probably would have accumulated at least several dozen strikes, and almost no gold stars. With quite a few reservations and anxieties, I decided to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq because I really thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was working to increase the number of such weapons. And I already knew that the United Nations was totally inept at restraining Saddam Hussein. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found means that some government leaders in our intelligence community were totally incompetent, and they should have been fired. But from day one I knew that Bush's decisions to "stimulate the economy" were bad decisions. He started this, I think, by sending checks to taxpayers in the Spring of 2008. And then he supported his Treasury Secretary Paulson on the first "TARP" program, spending three or four hundred billion of taxpayer dollars. Finally he agreed to "loan" taxpayer money to the auto companies. Bad decisions. I would have given Bush many, many strikes for last year alone. In a blog post of mine last year, in December, I did criticize Bush heavily.)

President Barack Obama Strike Count -   1151.0

President Obama Gold Star Count -   1.0

• June 24, 2010 - After more than one year, I can no longer deliberately follow the words and actions of this man, Barack Obama. He is a disgrace to the United States of America, and he is damaging our country. He is a proud, self-assured man who is sometimes arrogant and so full of himself, and yet his only true skill is his command of the English language and his clever use of the language - his rhetoric. His only real knowledge is in law. His only meaningful experience is in using his rhetoric and knowledge of the law to "game the system" in Illinois politics, especially in Chicago, supposedly to benefit the poor and African-Americans, but in actuality to further his own ambitions. And now, as president, he often uses his rhetoric as a demagogic politician in a continuing attempt to further his personal ambitions and his "progressive" agenda for the United States. (Some examples of his demagogic rhetoric can be found on this web site. If it is no longer available, some examples can be found here.) A better writer than I am describes Obama's experience as follows: "Obama's experience in administering anything is nil. He says he managed his campaign, but presidential candidates do not manage their campaigns except perhaps to say "yes" or "no" occasionally. Otherwise, he was a community organizer, a part-time lawyer, a university lecturer, a state senator and a U.S. senator who chiefly ran for president while holding that office."   Obama even seems to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Yes, one characteristic of this "disorder" is a lack of empathy for others, but Obama's clever rhetoric makes many people believe otherwise. As this web site says: "Many highly successful individuals might be considered narcissistic. However, this disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing." I think that Obama's narcissism, although it now seems to sometimes distress him, has not yet reached the point of disabling him. (If it ever does, impeachment and removal from office should follow.)
        Obama is said to be an intelligent man, but he is not at all wise, and he has little knowledge of economics, business, science and military matters. Even his clever rhetoric sometimes betrays what appears to be a lack of some fundamental knowledge; these include speeches in which he appeared to say that we had "57 states" and that Austrians speak "the Austrian language". (Or were those latter just "slips of the tongue"? No doubt Obama can explain those gaffes with his clever rhetoric, which he attempted to do with his "57 states" comment when he acknowledged the mistake later in the day by poking fun at his own "numeracy problem." Apparently his knowledge of math is not all that good. Of course he could always say that he "misspoke", a word used more and more by politicians who are caught lying.) Concerning military matters, this article points out one result of Obama's military ignorance. As to the military word "corpsman", Obama mispronounced that word despite his perceived excellent knowledge of the English language. Oh well, it was, after all, only a military word that is not used too often. Obama has put our country on a path towards more government regulation and control of our lives, with higher taxes and higher government debt to boot. When it comes to conducting foreign affairs, God help us, for Obama does not know how. The last straws for me were the "health care" reform laws, with the titles "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act". As Thomas Sowell aptly put it, « The current leadership in Washington operates as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether "affordable housing" or "universal health care" or anything else — and not concern themselves with the repercussions — since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates. Friedrich Hayek called this mindset "the road to serfdom." But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration — and especially the President — does not have is experience. Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things. »   For all of this I award Obama 1000 strikes, and I am now done with him on this page. (From time to time I may still inadvertently hear something about Obama which I might consider important to mention on my blog.)
• April 1, 2010 - This is not an April Fool's joke. A "Health Care Reform" bill has finally become law in March, - a law with the near-Orwellian title "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". (Actually, the law with that title was then followed by a reconciliation bill which Obama signed into law in late March.) Some details on the procedure for passage can be found here. President Obama, his administration and nearly all of the Democrats in Congress have finally succeeded in getting a law to "reform" health care after almost one year of effort - to include several attempted bills, much struggle, infighting, back-room deals and more. One stated intent of this law is to make the cost of health care and health insurance more affordable. Another stated intent is to provde nearly everybody with affordable health insurance, without decreasing the availability and quality of health care. And of course all of this will "save us money". Bullcrap. For this I award Obama 100 strikes.
• February 13, 2010 - Well, after just over one year in office, we now know that president Obama has had problems getting his most-favored policies put into law. The most prominent of these has been "health care reform", followed by cap-and-trade and then a few others. Obama is not at all happy about this. But never fear. According to this New York Times article, Obama and his cohorts are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance his energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities. Heck, if the United States Congress won't do it for him, well then he will do it himself with just the stroke of a pen. In fact, sometimes he will not even need to use his pen. Executive agencies over which he has much influence and even control can simply make new rules and regulations which Obama wants. Consider environmental matters for which Obama wants action. Obama appointed Carol Browner as the Director of the "White Houst Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy". Browner previously served as Administrator of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) during the Clinton administration, and she is a staunch environmentalist who will follow Obama's wishes. As for the EPA itself, Lisa Jackson was appointed by Obama to be the current administrator of the EPA, and she will almost certainly follow Obama's dictates. Heck, not long ago the EPA officially announced that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people, and this includes carbon dioxide. Therefore one can expect actual EPA rules to soon follow which will regulate carbon dioxide emissions in various ways. No need for a law. No need for Obama to even use his pen on an executive order in this particular case. For this dictator-like behavior on the part of Obama I award Obama three strikes.
• January 22, 2010 - I watched a video clip on TV yesterday in which Obama said that the United States will provide $100 billion dollars worth of relief to Haiti. That's okay. However, he again misused the word "investment". Among other things, president Obama said: "This will mean more of the life-saving equipment, food, water and medicine that will be needed. This investment will grow over the coming year, as we embark on the long-term recovery from this unimaginable tragedy". (My emphasis) NO, Mister Obama, that money is definitely NOT an investment. It is taxpayer money that will be spent on aid and relief efforts. None of that money will ever be returned to the taxpayers, which would be the minimum starting requirement for it to be called an "investment". For his misuse of this important word I award Obama one strike. By the way, this is not the first time that Obama used the word "invest" in place of the word "spend". Perhaps at Harvard Law School the upcoming lawyers are taught to often use the word "investment" as a synonym for the word "spending", for purposes of politics and their own self-interest, of course.
• January 10, 2010 - Both the Senate and the House passed separate versions of "health care reform" legislation late last year. Now they are trying to merge the two versions into one final bill which Obama will sign into law. Yesterday Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to play up the brighter side of the overhaul he hopes to sign in time for his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in a matter of weeks. He said it would ban "the worst practices of the insurance industry" even as he acknowledged it would take several years - until 2014 in some instances - for some of the changes to be fully in place. That has disappointed consumers and their advocates. "Now, it'll take a few years to fully implement these reforms in a responsible way," the president said. "But what every American should know is that once I sign health insurance reform into law, there are dozens of protections and benefits that will take effect this year." Obama also said, "In short, once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions and insurance company bureaucrats will have less."   (My emphases.)   Hey, Mister President, why did you not tell the American people that you and government bureaucrats will then have more control over health care decisions, and that the worst practices of government bureaucracies will then replace what you call the "worst practices" of the insurance industry? Yeh, I know why. You, Mister Obama, believe that the federal government, with you at the helm, know what is best for yourself and the American people, even if you have to compel the people to do things which you want by force of law. I also note, Mister Obama, your clever use of the word "responsible" to explain away the fact that parts of this law will not take effect until three to four years from now. You are being "responsible" all right, politically responsible for yourself and your administration; you know that the parts of the law which go into effect almost immediately will be those which most Americans will see and which most will approve, whereas those which will take effect later, (after the next presidential election), will be those which many if not most Americans will see as damaging. Heck, you have said many times that it is crucial for health care reform legislation to pass quickly; then why should any part of it be delayed for up to four year? Because you are a damn clever politician who wants power and privileges for yourself, followed by power and privileges for your close friends. So put the so-called "good stuff" into effect first; let the "bad stuff" come along later, after the next presidential election. Anyway, for the current state of the government's involvement in this upcoming health care legislation, and Obama's words and hubris, I award Obama 5 strikes.   (As to the state of all this proposed health care legislation in early January, you can read this page.)
• November 14, 2009 - During Obama's trip to the Far East, he was said to have bowed before the Japanese Emperor when meeting him for the first time. Yes, this photo shows Obama bowing before the Japanese Emperor. Well, I do not like this, but I will give Obama a pass on this one. Why? Two reasons. First of all, as mentioned in one opinion piece, "It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of 'the 57 states' is about; he was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream. Secondly, this gaffe of Obama's doesn't come close to all the previous damage that he has done to our country, and continues to do to this day. These include allowing his unworthy and highly-partisan Attorney General Eric Holder to try high-profile "terrorists" (enemy combatants) on United States soil in United States courts, terrorists currently being held in Guantanamo, most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Concerning this latter, this article gives good references on how the USA treated enemy combatants in the past.
• November 13, 2009 - According to one paragraph in this news article, Obama has already implemented government laws and plans that are spending more government money (that's taxpayers' money) in 9 months than president Clinton did during his entire 8 years in office! Yes, I suspect that all of this money has not yet been actually spent, such as some from the Spring stimulus bill which has not yet been spent. Nevertheless, for this I award Obama two strikes.
• November 13, 2009 - Last week, President Barack Obama signed a law that extends through next spring a temporary tax credit of up to $8,000 for some first-time home buyers, which was due to expire November 30. The law also adds a new tax credit of up to $6,500 for certain repeat home buyers. The government estimates that this package will cost a total of $11 billion. Way to go Obama! "Help" people buy houses with taxpayer money. For this I award Obama one strike.
• November 8, 2009 - The House passed their version of a "health care reform" bill yesterday, a nearly 2000 page monstrosity. Obama pushed heavily for passage, and he even came to the Capitol on Saturday and assured Democrats they would remember the vote as their finest moment in politics should he sign it into law. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said. Yes, maybe only once in a generation does the House of Representatives have the opportunity to pass a bill so huge, so filled with rules, (some ill-defined and hard to figure out), and which will have a huge impact on one-sixth of our economy. It will cost us dearly. For this I award Obama five strikes.
• November 6, 2009 - In a meeting yesterday with American Indians in a so-called "White House Tribal Nations Conference", Obama pledged to redeem broken promises made to American Indians, saying he is empathetic because of his own history as an "outsider". "Few have been more marginalized and ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans, our first Americans. I know what it means to feel ignored and forgotten, and what it means to struggle," he said. "So you will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this White House." What ?   Does Obama want to spend even more of our taxpayer money, this time on American Indians? Or does he want to include them in some sort of new "affirmative action" plan? Perhaps Obama is just continuing on with his crafty rhetoric, showing the "American people" what a good speaker he is and how much he "cares" for all of us. Perhaps he is also trying to insure that he (and the Democrats) get more Indian votes. What a bunch of bullcrap. For this I award Obama one strike.
• October 17, 2009 - On the Jay Leno show last night, Jay Leno told a joke. He said that the phrase President Obama used most often was "Let me be clear". Jay joked and said that the phrase President Obama used least often was "Let me be specific". Right on. I have heard Obama use that phrase many times, and a couple of times I was thinking about mentioning it on my web site. But Jay Leno beat me to it. In fact, so did this web article, which had the title "Dissecting President Obama's favorite phase". However, I will award Obama neither a strike nor a star for this. I almost awarded him one-half strike, but I will give him a break. Nevertheless, the frequent use of that phrase, plus two others almost exactly like it, is getting boring and ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, whenever I hear Obama start a speech or start talking about a new topic with the phrase "Let me be clear", warning bells go off in my head. Caution !   Misleading or vacuous talk ahead !
• October 6, 2009 - Obama gave a speech yesterday in the White House Rose Garden to 150 doctors, doctors that he had invited expressly for the purpose of pushing health-care reform. This was a widely publicized photo op. One of the things he said was, "I especially want to thank you for agreeing to fan out across the country and make the case about why this reform effort is so desperately needed." (My emphasis)   Desperately ? That is absolute bullcrap. What we do "desperately" need is for our President to correctly handle the "foreign affairs" problems that we have with Islam and Islamic extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, which includes the potential nuclear bomb problem with Iran. For this I award Obama one strike.
• September 22, 2009 - For the first time ever, a sitting president appeared on a late night talk show, in this case with David Letterman. Wow! How cool Obama was! Why according to the news reports he even let out some personal information about his family, such as the heavy homework load that his daughters have to suffer through. Heck, he is just an ordinary guy in an ordinary family! Yeh, right. This guy is constantly exposing himself on television to the American people, such that I am getting sick and tired of him. Last Sunday he appeared on five different political and news talk shows. But to appear on a late night talk show noted for comedy and celebrity worship is somewhat degrading to the presidential office. For this I award Obama one strike.
• September 19, 2009 - This is slightly old news, but I did just read it again, with a detail that I missed before. President Barack Obama has ordered steep, additional U.S. tariffs on Chinese tires for three years, including 35 percent in the first year. The increases come on top of the current 4 percent tariff. Obama, did you ever hear of the Smoot-Hawley tariff? Well, regardless, I guess Obama owes too much to the unions, such as the United Steel Workers Union which had threatened action against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. These workers just approved a new contract that will prevent the potential closing of a half-dozen Goodyear plants in the next four years. The United Steelworkers said the agreement covers about 10,300 workers. Yep, and tires will cost consumers more. For this large tariff I award Obama one strike.
• September 18, 2009 - It has been over four months since I last added to this web page. This was mostly because I was involved in a major auto accident and because I also had computer problems. Sorry about that. Well, since my last posting on this page, on May 3rd, Obama has spent huge amounts of time attempting to push for "health care reform", loosely defined. He has given dozens of public speeches on "health care", many of them widely televised. His words in these speeches have shown his skillful and clever rhetoric, rhetoric designed to "please the masses" while giving few details. His words were often misleading, somewhat vague, and were often half-truths. I suggest reading this opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer to get a better description of Obama's rhetoric, especially as it applies to health and medical care. For all of this bullcrap over the past four months I award Obama five strikes. He has contributed badly to the well-being of the United States in this matter.
• May 20, 2009 - President Obama signed the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act", which extends the increase in deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor through December 31, 2013. Note the name of that law - "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act" - an Orwellian title if there ever was one. Given all this, to include the Orwellian title, I award Obama one strike.
• May 3, 2009 - President Obama will soon have the chance to appoint a new justice to the United States Supreme Court. To date Obama has made only a few public comments about this, but these comments of his terrify me. Read this post on my blog for more details on this. For his comments on this matter I award Obama one strike.
• April 21, 2009 - President Obama has now been president for close to 100 days. During that time he has given a lot of speeches which touched on our country's relations with other countries. For example, at the Summit of the Americas, Daniel Ortega attacked the United States verbally, accusing the United States of being terroristic, expansionist and interventionist. In response Obama was reported to have said that he (Obama) should not be blamed for "things that happened when I was three months old". Additional information on Obama's talks about such matters can be found on this web page. The latter describes the damage that Obama's comments have done to our country, and it is worth the read. For Obama's speeches about this kind of stuff I award him one strike.
• April 18, 2009 - Obama now has the gall to call for fiscal responsibility and responsible government spending during his weekly radio address. He calls for the elimination of government waste. For more information on this, and my comments, read this blog post and also this one. For all this I award Obama half a strike.
• April 16, 2009 - Good heavens, what is it with this guy? I mean Obama? Now he wants a network of high-speed passenger rail lines in the United States, with much of it being paid for with government (taxpayer) money! My God! This guy is putting more and more on his plate (the taxpayers' plate), so much so that I am starting to wonder if this guy really would like our country to have a socialistic economy, or at least one highly so. Have not Obama and his administration already done enough and proposed enough? Stimulus package, bailouts, a really huge budget, proposed health care for everyone, proposed carbon taxes, more federal government money for education, etc. etc. One more strike for this guy!
• April 13, 2009 - I was surprised that president Obama did give the US Navy the authority to use force in order to rescue Captain Phillips who was being held captive by Somali pirates. I thought that he would probably insist on continuing "negotiations". Force was used, successfully, to rescue the Captain and kill three pirates. Normally I would award Obama one gold star for this, but I can only give him one-half of a gold star based on some public comments of his. He reportedly said, "We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region. To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes". Well, that is not enough. Instead we should do what I strongly recommended in my blog posts on April 13th and on April 12th. It is of course quite possible that what Obama said publicly was only for public consumption, and that he might be making plans with the military to take other actions, actions best kept secret. In the meantime, however, only half of a gold star. Sorry.
• April 6, 2009 - I did not mention this in my March 26th entry, but I will mention it now. It is worthy of note that president Obama's proposed budget has the title "A New Era of Responsibility". And yet the budget itself, in which absolutely huge amounts of government (taxpayer) spending are proposed, is itself highly irresponsible. A few of my comments on this can be found on this blog post. For this highly irresponsible title I award Obama one strike.
• March 26, 2009 - President Obama gave a widely-televised press conference on March 24th. He opened the press conference with a short speech. In this speech he first addressed the ongoing economic and financial crisis; he delivered lines in a very smooth manner, calculated to make the listener believe that he and his administration had already taken steps to alleviate this crisis, and that further steps were ongoing. In effect he said that progress had been made and that more progress was being made. He then transitioned to talking about major government actions, actions called for in his proposed budget, and he did this is a very smooth manner. This transition was marked by these consecutive sentences of his:

  . . . the most critical part of our strategy is to ensure that we do not return to an economic cycle of bubble and bust in this country. We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices, and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it's endangered us all. The budget I submitted to Congress will build our economic recovery on a stronger foundation so that we don't face another crisis like this 10 or 20 years from now. We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world. We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government.

  Yes, his words just quoted mentioned the three economic sectors in which Obama wants the government to get very involved - energy, education and health care. No surprise there. Note the heavy use that Obama makes of the word "invest", which is something I touched upon in this blog post. Don't worry citizens. The government will not be spending large amounts of money; instead the government will be investing large amounts of money! Is that not better? And don't forget that this will keep us from having another economic crisis in the years to come, even up to 20 years from now! Yes, Obama's words were so calm, so simple, a bit cautionary but yet reassuring. (Yes, some langue de bois from Obama.) However dear citizens, as Obama in effect said, we must all recognize that we must all work together, and that we all have responsibilities to each other and to our country. And as he said: « We'll recover from this recession, but it will take time, it will take patience and it will take an understanding that, when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the wider set of obligations we have towards each other, that's when we succeed, that's when we prosper and that's what is needed right now. » .   For this ABSOLUTE BULLCRAP I award Obama one strike.
• March 14, 2009 - President Obama just keeps on going and going and going. In his radio speech today, he called for government action to make our food supply safer. Some details on this can be found on my blog post. Gosh, I would think that given the sorry state of our economy and financial system, that Obama would concentrate on those systems. But no, in his pseudo "State of the Nation" address to Congress he not only addressed those systems, but also called for major government programs in health, energy and education. And now he brings up our food safety. All this just during his first 50 days in office. For this latest "call to action" I award Obama half a strike.
• March 12, 2009 - President Obama signed an omnibus bill yesterday, the bill with between 8000 and 9000 "earmarks". The exact number of earmarks depends upon which politician or pundit you believe. Obama signed the bill in private, but before doing so he gave a public speech in which he talked about the bill. He said, "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government." Well, that is stretching the truth. This bill was supposed to be part of the budget passed last year under Bush, but part of that budget was not passed since Congress and Bush could not agree on certain things. Instead, the parts of government affected by all this were kept going by short-term emergency spending authorizations, and at least one of those short-term authorizations was repeated during Obama's watch. So this bill was not necessary for the ongoing functions of government; another short-term authorization bill would have been necessary for that. When campaigning for President, Obama did speak out against earmarks or "pet projects", and he vowed reform. Well, just before signing this bill, he did say, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business". So okay Obama, you could have ended it, or at least tried to end it, by not signing this bill, but you did not. So are we to believe that from this day forward things will be different? Well, I don't. I now know that Obama is a smooth, often clever politician. He says one thing but does another. (This reminds me of the old movie cliché in which a gangster, just before shooting someone, says to his victim, "This isn't personal; it's just business".) On this web site there is a video of Obama talking before he signed the bill. As this web site says: « In his remarks, Obama defended some earmarks as worthy, but said in the future things must be different. So, essentially, he defended signing a bill with 9,000 earmarks and at the same time said we must have earmark reform in the future! Now that is what I call "audacity". »  Exactly !   For this I award Obama one strike.
• March 9, 2009 - Just recently I read that President Obama proposed that United States forces and the Afghanistan government try to "reach out" to moderate Taliban. The supposed intent of this is to reach some peaceful agreements between both sides, thus helping to reduce the fighting and render Afghanistan more peaceful. The Afghan President Hamid Karzai is very much in favor of doing this. Frankly, this is bullcrap. First of all, Hamid Karzai has been an ineffective leader. He is one of the few Afghanistan people whose family was (and is) upper class, with money and property, most of which has been stashed away in safe places. (That's why Karzai speaks English. His family was rich enough to send him outside the country for a good education.) Karzai took advantage of that in order to become President when the Taliban were ousted by US and British forces, thus gaining power for himself and his family. His actions as President have mostly been a disaster, although some of that was not his fault since Afghanistan has never been a truly integrated country, but instead a country in which various regions have been effectively controlled by warlords, and not a central government. Karzai placated some of these warlords, and continues to do so, rather than trying to get rid of their power and influence. As to Obama's intent to "reach out" to "moderate" Taliban, I wondered just what in the heck was a "moderate" Taliban. One who only gives a woman one very light blow with a lash when he sees the woman exposing her ankle instead of giving her five heavy blows with a lash? This is bullcrap. Today I read that some analysts agree with me, such as the writer Qaseem Akhgar. He reportedly said, "'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?". Of course there is not. For this stupidity on the part of Obama I award him half a strike.
• March 9, 2009 - I read a recent article which describes increasing reservations that some people are now having with respect to president Obama's plans. These people are not confined to only conservatives and Republicans. My comments on this can be found on this page. (No strikes or gold stars are applicable here. This is just a presentation of some current information about the thoughts of other people on Obama.)
• March 8, 2009 - On this page I have not as yet addressed the speech president Obama gave to Congress and the American people on February 24th. I did mention it in this post on my blog. Today I had a need to read that speech, and I did so. My comments on that speech can be found here. Given the contents of that speech, I award Obama one strike.
• March 8, 2009 - I have not as yet remarked on Obama's initiatives with regards to our nation's so-called "health care system". Well, his words and actions to date with regards to this are bad, and for this I award him one strike. More details on Obama's current initiatives on this can be found on this page.
• March 5, 2009 - Despite my very serious reservations about President Obama and his adminstration because of the policies and plans coming from them, I always thought that Obama himself was a very good public speaker. Frankly, I think that his oratory had much to do with his success in getting elected president. However, today I read an article which said that Obama almost always uses a teleprompter when he gives speeches. You can read this blog post for more details on this. Since he almost always uses a teleprompter, I have to seriously downgrade his speaking ability; after all, without the wonderful tone of his voice (with which he was born) and the words on a teleprompter, his speeches would not at all be so good. In fact, since his highly-praised "oratory" has contributed strongly to his election, I must award him half a strike because his oratory is at least partially fake due to heavy use of a teleprompter.
• March 2, 2009 - Today I found out that Obama has just created a White House Office on Urban Policy. Why? Well, at least according to this government web site, the White House Office of Urban Policy will develop "a strategy for metropolitan America" and it will "ensure that all federal dollars targeted to urban areas are effectively spent on the highest-impact programs". The Director of Urban Policy will report directly to the president and coordinate all federal urban programs. This is more new bullcrap created by Obama and his administration which will spend even more of our tax dollars. Note that this new "White House Office", despite being a federal government entity, will immerse itself in towns, cities and urban areas. Since when is the federal government supposed to spend time, effort and federal tax dollars on totally local matters? (I know that the federal government has done so in the past. But with this action of Obama's not only will a new federal "Office" be created for this kind of stuff, but also more money will be spent on this kind of stuff.) Anyway, at least this new White House Office will create a few more jobs - at the very least jobs to staff this new White House Office.
      To add insult to injury, it turns out that the first person appointed by Obama to head this new "White House Office of Urban Policy" is a man named Adolfo Carrión who is accused of shady dealings. Carrión resigned Sunday as the Bronx Borough President (in New York City) to become the director of the "White House Office of Urban Policy", starting today. As a politician in New York City, this man is accused of approving a string of construction projects pitched by developers who had donated to his political campaign just weeks before he approved their plans. This news report gives some details on this, and so does this report. To quote a line from the latter report, "The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money". From reading those reports, it is hard to tell just how much campaign money was donated to him by these developers who wanted approval of their building projects; however, it certainly amounts to many thousands of dollars, and probably close to $100,000, if not more. Another news report gives information on some earlier actions of this man. This report says that while working with the city to spur local jobs and "affordable" housing and business development, he came under fire for his almost unflinching support for the new Yankee stadium despite some vocal community opposition. He wound up firing four local community board members who voted against parts of the city's development plan. This man is described as being an "Afro-Latino". However, I don't much care what his ethnicity is; I do care what kind of man he is.
      Of course all of this is not really "new" when it comes to politics. According to this news report Obama « received praise for his campaign pledge to create an office of urban policy in the white house. Obama, who worked as a community organizer early in his career, is expected to be better for cities than the previous administration. Back in October, when he toured Philly, Obama told a crowd in Germantown: "If we can rebuild Baghdad, we can certainly rebuild Philadelphia.” ». Yep, that is certainly one of the "important functions" of our federal government - to rebuild cities.   As to the actions of the politician Adolfo Carrión, those actions are typical of many politicians. Catering to "special interests", where some are defined as those who gave money to your political campaign in order to get projects approved, is a well-established practice in politics. I don't think that all politicians do that, but I suspect that most of them do. At the very least, donating money to a politician's campaign will help influence the politician, even if only a very small amount. As to Obama's constant claims that he will not tolerate lobbyists and "special interests", well that is just more political rhetoric and bullcrap on his part. Anyway, for all of this I award Obama one-half of a strike.
• February 28, 2009 - Well, it's out. President Obama has released his proposed budget for the US Government. It is an absolute monstrosity, not only because of its huge cost, the biggest ever by far, but also because of the things it will be used for. This budget, called “A New Era of Responsibility” as its "title", can be found on the Internet under this web site. This budget itself does not give too many specific details within departments’ budgets. However, the money allocated makes it clear what gets priority and what does not. The "title" of this budget - A New Era of Responsibility - is truly ironic since in no way is this budget "responsible". Instead it is irresponsibility at its extreme.
      Huge amounts of money are to be spent on "renewable" energy, on healthcare, on education and on efforts to combat global warming. What absolute nonsense most of this is. In his radio and Internet speech on his budget today, Obama's words made clear that he is a man of the far left, a populist and even a demagogue. He attacks the wealthy and strongly implies that the "favored few" - the wealthy and powerful - are responsible for economic damage and that they must be the ones to provide most of the additional money needed for this budget. Note that the "wealthy" includes here not only individuals, but also private companies. (He neglects to mention that the "wealthy" already pay for the large majority of government expenditures via the taxes they pay. But now Obama insists that they pay more.) I am so disgusted by Obama's budget and the speech that he gave on it that I will not continue here any more. No more research on this, at least for the time being. I do not want to get a stroke or a heart attack. I had a hard enough time just writing about this on my blog. I now know what Obama's ideology is - an ideology of the far left, an ideology in which government controls major parts of the economy, and an ideology in which wealth redistribution has a prominent position. Heaven help the USA. For this atrocious budget proposal I award Obama five strikes. This man is a disaster.
• February 22, 2009 - It has been reported that Obama definitely plans to announce budget plans which will cut the federal deficit in half by 2013. Given the existing size of the federal deficit, and the huge increase that the deficit will incur this year and next, I find this plan ridiculous because it is impossible. This is especially true when you realize that most of the coming increases in the deficit will be caused by the huge spending plans of Obama and his administration, to include the recently passed "stimulus" bill. A few more details on this can be found on this blog post of mine. For this bullcrap I award Obama one strike.
      Later Note: On Monday, February 23rd, I read the following report: « Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week. "If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences." He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years'"casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks." He called the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far" and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority. Wall Street seemed unimpressed by all the talk. The Dow Jones industrials dropped 251 points for the day ». Yeh, I too am unimpressed. The strike I awarded Obama remains. I read that report on this web page, and I only copied it above since I do not know how long that web page will be available.
• February 20, 2009 - This week President Obama proposed a serious housing plan which is supposed to help struggling home owners - those who are in foreclosure, or in danger of foreclosure. As reported in several news articles, including this one, the plan is a change in lending rules to help as many as 5 million homeowners refinance, $75 billion to help up to 4 million homeowners most at risk of foreclosure, and a pledge of $200 billion to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help keep mortgage rates low. This totals $275 billion, which, with the interest that will have to be paid on borrowed money, will exceed 300 billion dollars. The American taxpayer will of course be "on the hook" for all this money. At this time it is said that at least 92 percent of homeowners with mortgages are paying their mortgages on time, and they can continue to do so. The majority of homeowners do not like this plan of Obama's, since it will reward at least some people who have been financially irresponsible. Yes, I know that Obama stated that this plan will not reward those who have been irresponsible, but that is absolute bullcrap on his part. Why? Because the difference between "responsibility" and "irresponsibility" is not a fine line but rather a gray area, hard to define. This is especially so when you realize that this "gray area" will be selected by politicians and government officials; however, if you are "politically-connected", do not worry - you will be considered "responsible".
      I have seen and read too many reports on individual "homeowners" who are in trouble because they can not keep up with their mortgage payments. In most cases these people were clearly either irresponsible or ignorant (or both). For example, many such homeowners, finding the value of their homes going much higher, took out second mortgages in order to borrow more money for "improvements", such as adding backyard swimming pools or enlarging an "entertainment room" and filling it with expensive equipment such as very large screen TVs and expensive audio systems. Other homeowners took on adjustable rate mortgages, which to me are almost a scam. When I bought my last house many years ago, the option of an "adjustable rate mortgage" was something which I avoided like the plague; I thought that it would be taking too much of a chance to borrow money for which the future interest payments were unknown and subject to change over which I would have no control. So I took out a fixed-rate mortgage, and although the interest rate was somewhat high, it was something that I knew I could handle, and that the rate would never increase per the terms of the contract. Anyway, for this plan of Obama's I award him one strike.
• February 17, 2009 - President Obama has signed the stimulus bill, which is actually called something more "appropriate" - the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. (Doesn't that sound nicer?) During and after the signing ceremony, Obama made heavy use of "la langue de bois", which is to be expected from this man with his fluent use of the English language and rhetorical flourishes. However, this bill is said to cost almost 800 billion dollars, and that money needs to be borrowed, which means that its true cost will be closer to one trillion dollars since interest will have to be paid. Contrary to Obama's earlier statements, this bill contains pork and earmarks, and I do not intend to research all of these and list them here. Many of them can not be listed since the "stimulus bill" is seldom specific as to exactly what will be done with the money; the money will clearly will be spent on various "projects", and it will be politicians and bureaucrats who will make the specific choices required; many of those choices will surely be pork. Yes, we know about Pelosi's wish to save the salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area, but that portion of this bill will only cost about 30 million dollars, and this money will do more than just save this particular mouse species. As for the 8 billion dollars to be spent on "high-speed railways", probably only some of that might be used for the high-speed rail line that Harry Reid wants built between California and Las Vegas, not all of it. And as for the more than 60 billion dollars assigned to the "poor and unemployed", well, we must help our neighbors, must we not? Why as a retired social security recipient, even I will get a check for 250 dollars. (Darn ! I thought that Obama was going to give me at least 500 dollars.) I am concerned about the many billions of dollars that are to be "spent" on public schools and education; it is well known that our public schools have performed worse over the past 30 years or so, despite an increasing amount of real money being spent per pupil. I am definitely concerned about the billions of dollars allotted to renewable energy or so-called "green energy"; this money is supposedly to be used for renewable energy - its development, use and increasing subsidies, and as Obama said during the signing, this is "laying the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create countless well-paying jobs". Bullcrap. As most people should know, (and many definitely do know), almost all money currently used to increase the use of "renewable energy" and its development, including subsidizing it, is money that is not economically well-spent. As the referenced article says, « There's an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic standpoint, they're big losers. Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them. The subsidies involved are considerable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early 2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power at $23.37 per MWh. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous state-level mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than 1% of our nation's electricity ». True, almost all of our conventional power sources such as coal and natural gas also benefit from some subsidies, but these subsidies are much, much less than those currently given to so-called "renewable energy", not to mention the new subsidies that will come. Thankfully, however, Obama "softened" the "Buy America" provisions in the bill; I understand that they are still there, but there are now some allowed exceptions; naturally those exceptions will actually be used so that we do not get into a trade war with other countries. Well, all things considered, this is all bullcrap. For this I assign Obama two strikes. More strikes will be coming as this bullcrap slowly but surely makes things worse. (Some of my detailed analysis on this stimulus bill can be found in this blog post of mine. A copy of the stimulus bill itself can be found here.)
• February 7, 2009 - President Obama has again made use of "la langue de bois". As reported in this news article, Obama said: "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point". He warned Republicans not to "come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." Americans, he said, "did not vote for the false theories of the past, and they didn't vote for phony arguments and petty politics. They sent us here to bring change". Obama also said in his weekly radio address, "Americans across this country are struggling, and they are watching to see if we're equal to the task before us. Let's show them that we are. And let's do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time". Hey Obama, the presidential campaign is over. Let's stop with that smooth and sometimes "pretty" language and get down to brass tacks and workable details. Anyway, for all that kind of language I award Obama half a strike.
• February 6, 2009 - It was reported that President Obama will name an "advisory board" to provide him with advice on plans to revive the economy. The members of this board are to be business leaders, former government officials, financial experts, academics such as university professors, and labor leaders. The appointment of government officials I find troubling, since most of these know little about economics, and what they profess to know is often neutral at best, harmful at worst. As to the business leaders, one of them is said to be the CEO of General Electric Jeffrey Immelt, the guy who succeeded Jack Welch; under the leadership of Jeffrey Immelt General Electric has gone downhill, so his skills as a high-level manager are suspect. Labor officials on this board are said to be Anna Burger, a high official in the Service Employees International Union, and also Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. For all of these latter appointments to this advisory board I have to give Obama one strike.
• February 5, 2009 - In an article written by President Obama which appeared in the Washington Post, Obama used strong words to call for quick passage of an "economic stimulus package". (To be noted is that leading politicians, including the President, do not want such as package or law called a "stimulus" package but rather a "recovery" package. After all, the word "recovery" sounds more "appropriate", more intense and to-the-point than does the word "stimulus". Yes, word games here, a favorite game played by politicians.) In any event, the language Obama used in this article is full of "la langue de bois", a French expression which usually means language used by a politician to get citizens and voters on his or her side, without at the same time angering those citizens against the politician. In addition, the expression implies the use of words and phrases which do not really mean anything concrete, which are often inaccurate, and which are banal, sometimes pompous, and which appeal to people's emotions and sentiments rather than to actual, factual knowledge. I am not going to quote Obama's sentences which are examples of "la langue de bois"; you can read them in the referenced article. I must mention, however, that in this article Obama calls for actions which have little or nothing to do with our present economic and financial crises, such as his call for energy-efficiency, "better" education for our children, and for what appears to be universal health insurance. Anyway, for this entire article I assign Obama one strike. When you get right down to it, Obama is just using his power of language to call for a near immediate growth in the size and power of the federal government, and its increasing intrusion into our lives.
• February 4, 2009 - Tom Daschle, nominated by President Obama for Secretary of Health and Human Services, recently "removed himself" from consideration for that post. Supposedly he did this because of the hue and cry that has been raised over the fact that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes during the past few years, having actually paid them just when he was nominated for Secretary. All sorts of reasons have been given by commentators about his withdrawal. Some people say that Obama requested it. Others say that Obama did not request it, but instead Democrat leaders put pressure on Daschle. Obama himself, using somewhat vague language, stronly hinted that he himself did not ask Daschle to withdraw. Obama did, however, nominate Daschle in the first place. However, since Obama publicly admitted that he (Obama) had screwed up, his original nomination does not merit a strike. In fact, for that public admission Obama gets a little credit; not enough credit for a gold star, but enough credit to get one/half of a gold star.
• January 31, 2009 - President Obama has publicly made clear at least some of his wishes with respect to organized labor in a ceremony held in the White House yesterday. As reported in this news article, Obama signed three executive orders that he said would “reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we’ve seen these last eight years, policies with which I’ve sharply disagreed.” The orders Mr. Obama signed, which union officials say will undo Bush administration policies that tilted toward employers, make it more difficult for federal contractors to discourage union activities. I saw a brief segment on television during which Obama was speaking, and I think this was happening during this ceremony at the White House. Obama said that "labor is not part of the problem, it is part of the solution". To me this is not only wrong, but frightening. Surely most everyone should know by now that labor unions bear major responsibility for the poor shape of the "Big Three" auto makers (whom the harmful Bush adminisration stupidly "bailed out", at least for the time being). Not to mention other problems caused by labor unions over the years. And in case you did not know it, one reason for the continuing high unemployment during the Great Depression was the increasing amount of power given to organized labor by president Roosevelt and his administration. Given Obama's public comments described above, I give him two strikes.
• Free Trade and Tariffs - one of the disastrous government steps which prolonged the Great Depression, (and may even have helped start it), was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill. This bill crushed free trade among countries, which is damaging to all economies. Concerning this subject, what are Obama's thoughts? To date I think that Obama is not much in favor of "free trade", although I can not be certain about that. He will bear watching on this. At the end of January, 2009, less than two weeks into office, President Barack Obama faces a dilemma over protectionist provisions in a massive economic stimulus bill: Backing the measures could set off a trade war, while opposing them could trigger a backlash from his supporters. The choice involves "buy American" provisions attached to White House-backed stimulus legislation moving through Congress. They would require major public works projects to favor U.S. steel, iron and manufacturing over imports. Some Democratic lawmakers and interest groups allied to the president support the measures, but international allies and trading partners are warning that favoring U.S. companies would breach U.S. trade commitments and could set off tit-for-tat countermeasures around the world.
      The two largest U.S. trading partners already have spoken out against the measures. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed concern and the European Union warned that it would not "stand idly by" if such measures were passed. On Friday, Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also criticized the measures.
      In November, world leaders, who gathered in Washington for the G-20 summit to consider how to right the global economy, pledged to avoid protectionism. But since taking office Jan. 20, Obama has said little on trade and has yet to nominate a trade representative. While campaigning, he argued that the Bush administration's strong support of free trade agreements should be moderated by including environmental and labor protections. "The jury is out on how this administration is going on trade policy," said Steven Schrage, an international business analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This will be a key test."
      Asked about the protective provisions Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs would say only that the administration was reviewing them. The provisions are likely to find support among Americans outraged that money from a stimulus package likely to top $800 billion could go to foreign competitors of U.S. firms. "I believe that when taxpayer dollars are used, they should support the things produced here at home," Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan, author of one of the provisions, said in a statement. (Most Americans and politicians do not understand economics, and certainly not the net benefits of free trade. As to the principal of comparative advantage, most Americans and politicians have never even heard of it.)
      Many analysts say the measures reflect the interests of small sectors over the larger economy, which could suffer from reduced trade and higher steel prices. "The result, according to my calculations, is that the U.S. will lose more jobs than it will gain," said Gary Hufbauer, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank. "We are going to poison the wells of world commerce if we do this." The provisions are in a bill already approved by the House and a different version under consideration in the Senate. The Senate version states that none of the funds from the stimulus may be used for a project "unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the projects are produced in the United States." The House version leaves out manufactured goods. Obama, who has argued that stimulus measures are urgent, is unlikely to block passage of any bill approved by the Congress. But he could press lawmakers to remove the protectionist measures before it is passed, (but don't hold your breath for that). "The problem is that Obama has not said anything yet," said Dan Ikenson of the libertarian Cato Institute. Both versions of the bill include language that would allow the president to waive the protectionist measures if he decides that would be in the economic interests of the United States. But passage of the measures could in itself unnerve trading partners and encourage other countries to take similar protective action.

        Home Page