The Poisonous Presidency

By Alan Caruba via Canada Free Press

When the leaders of the United States, the President, his Vice President, his Secretary of State and others deliberately lie to its citizens, knowing full well that the facts about the tragic killing of an American ambassador and three of his staff are widely known, the nation has reached a point where it is paramount that he be removed from office.

The forthcoming election is the instrument and current indicators are that President Obama will be defeated. It is to be hoped that power in the Senate will be returned to the Republican Party and retainedl in the House of Representatives. This is the only way steps can be taken to avoid the financial collapse that faces the nation and achieve the repeal of Obamacare that Mitt Romney has promised if elected.

What worries me most, however, is the utter disdain for the truth that has marked the presidency of Barack Obama. It has been nearly four years of sustained lies about the steps that were taken to respond to the financial crisis facing the nation when he took office. The so-called “stimulus” wasted billions, becoming little more than a slush fund for Democratic fund-raisers, unions, and other connected parties to the administration. Instead the administration literally seized control of General Motors and Chrysler, then in the normal process of bankruptcy, claiming to save the jobs of auto workers. What they did was shunt aside the legitimate creditors and investors in GM. They arbitrarily discontinued its often long relationship with several hundred auto dealerships, adding their employees to the unemployment lines. They then insisted that GM invest millions in the creation of an electric car that cost $47,000 to purchase and ended up purchasing them for government use with taxpayer’s money.

Obamacare, more than 2,700 pages in length and incorporating more than twenty new taxes, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress with little evidence that any of those who voted for it had even read it. Arguing initially that he was not a tax, when challenged in the Supreme Court, the administration then said it was a tax. For some inexplicable reason, the Court permitted it to stand despite its clear over-ride of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that forbids the government from requiring a citizen to purchase anything.

Under Obama, the foreign policy of the nation has now seriously weakened its position in the world and combined with cuts to defense spending, put its ability to protect the homeland and project power abroad at risk. The administration failed to negotiate an agreement with Iraq that would permit U.S. troops to remain in place, as they do at the invitation of many nations around the world, leaving Iraq vulnerable to al Qaeda. Setting a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan only emboldened the Taliban.

The so-called Arab Spring has mutated, not into the establishment of democratic institutions in nations like Egypt or Libya, but an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to at least ascend to positions of power in opposition to America’s interests in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

We now know that President Obama skipped some sixty percent of the daily CIA briefings that presidents long have made a part of their duties and this no doubt led to its ignorance of the impending tragedy in Libya, but the fault lies, too, with the State Department that ignored the slain ambassador’s pleas for increased security for the embassy and consulate. This is a president who has been missing in action as the Islamic jihad began to heat up across the face of the globe.

The hostility of President Obama’s administration to the vital energy sector of the nation has denied access to oil extraction on the vast acreage of federal lands. It has denied permits for offshore drilling to a far larger degree than previous administrations. It has mercilessly attacked the coal industry, responsible for nearly fifty percent of all electricity generation in the nation. Plants for electricity have closed down under the pressure of costly EPA regulations. Only the natural gas sector has grown, thanks to the technology of fracking, but both oil and gas is being extracted mostly on private land.

Read the rest here.

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy — Again

By Louis Woodhill via Forbes

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors.  That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again.  The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company.  It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday.  This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share.  However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling.  It would be too embarrassing politically.  Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

GM is unlikely to hit the wall before the election, but, given current trends, the company could easily do so again before the end of a second Obama term.

In the 1960s, GM averaged a 48.3% share of the U.S. car and truck market.  For the first 7 months of 2012, their market share was 18.0%, down from 20.0% for the same period in 2011.  With a loss of market share comes a loss of relative cost-competitiveness.  There is only so much market share that GM can lose before it would no longer have the resources to attempt to recover.

To help understand why GM keeps losing market share, let’s look at the saga of the Chevy Malibu.

The Malibu is GM’s entry in the automobile market’s “D-Segment”.  The D-Segment comprises mid-size, popularly priced, family sedans, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord.  The D-Segment accounted for 14.7% of the total U.S. vehicle market in 2011, and 21.3% during the first 7 months of 2012.

Because the D-Segment is the highest volume single vehicle class in the U.S., and the U.S. is GM’s home market, it is difficult to imagine how GM could survive long term unless it can profitably develop, manufacture, and market a vehicle that can hold its own in the D-Segment.  This is true not only because of the revenue potential of the D-Segment, but also because of what an also-ran Malibu would say about GM’s ability to execute at this time in its history.

GM is in the process of introducing a totally redesigned 2013 Chevy Malibu.  It will compete in the D-Segment with, among others, the following: the Ford Fusion (totally redesigned for 2013); the Honda Accord (totally redesigned for 2013); the Hyundai Sonata (totally redesigned for 2011); the Nissan Altima (totally redesigned for 2013); the Toyota Camry (refreshed for 2013); and the Volkswagen Passat (totally redesigned for 2012).

Automobile technology is progressing so fast that the best vehicle in a given segment is usually just the newest design in that segment.  Accordingly, if a car company comes out with a new, completely redesigned vehicle, it had better be superior to the older models being offered by its competitors.  If it is not, the company will spend the next five years (the usual time between major redesigns in this segment) losing market share and/or offering costly “incentives” to “move the metal”.

While Dan Akerson is busy rearranging the deck chairs on GM’s Titanic, Martin Winterkorn is leading VW to world domination via technical excellence.

“The game isn’t over until it’s over”, but if President Obama wins reelection, he should probably start giving some serious thought to how he is going to justify bailing out GM, and its unionized UAW workforce, yet again.  And, during the current campaign, Obama might want to be a little more modest about what he actually achieved by bailing out GM the first time.

Read more at Forbes.

General Motors CEO – “7 out of 10 GM Vehicles Made Outside US” – Commitment with Communist China (Video)

(Fox News reported that the Treasury Department claims the taxpayers will lose $25 Billion of the $85 Billion used to bail out General Motors. On the other hand, Honda is making cars here in the US at record numbers – enough to begin exporting from the US!)

I know this administration is hell-bent on outsourcing jobs to China but using our tax dollars to do it is the newest low in their sell-out of our country.  Obama spent 80 BILLION of our taxpayer dollars to bail out General Motors but the jobs are in China.  GM is now in business with a Communist government and we paid for it.  They have eleven joint ventures with SAIC (Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation) and FAW (another Chinese government-owned manufacturer).

“Our commitment to working in China, with China, and for China remains strong and focused on the future.”  –  Dan Akerson, CEO of GM

Mr. Akerson went on to say that 7 out of 10 GM vehicles are made OUTSIDE of the United States.  General Motors has been shrinking its operations in the US while aggressively expanding and investing in Communist China.  How does that help with US jobs, Mr. President?  And more importantly, why is the UAW still supporting him?

We need to pay attention folks.  Please vote for the American in November!

H/T Bill Norwood

San Diego Newspaper Rates Obama as Worst President – EVER

Via Union Tribune San Diego

Editor’s note: It’s a presidential election year, so we thought we’d weigh in with our list of the five worst presidents.  We start with, yes, the current incumbent. See our other choices at U-T Opinion online.

(Kasey’s note:  We all know Carter is second, check out the other three!)

He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.

He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn’t change; and that rationing would never happen.

He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.

He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector.

He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer.

He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.

He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency.

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace – not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness.

And in December 2011 – at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn’t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion – here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.”

Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

H/T Nice Deb

 

Just a Taste of a Second Obama Term

By Doug Patton via Canada Free Press

First, he came for the General Motors bondholders, but the religious leaders were not GM bondholders, so they did not speak up. Then he came for the oil companies, but they were not oil company executives, and again they did not speak up. Next, he came for control of the nation’s health care system, and again they saw no threat — in fact, many of them supported his plan.

We were told we had to pass the plan to could find out what was in it. Then he came for our freedom of religion, and we found out what was in it: pure, unadulterated tyranny.

In a stunning exercise of raw, unconstitutional power, Barack Obama now tells people of faith that their rights do not come from God, as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the Constitution, but rather from him. The right to practice one’s religion is now codified in the so-called Affordable Care Act of 2010, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Last week, Obama announced that religious organizations would be required to include birth control and abortifacient devices and medications in the health care plans they provide for their employees. When it became clear that America’s Christian leaders would not stand for this, Obama is said to have “backed down.” In reality, he did no such thing.

What the president did was to call a press conference to announce his “compromise.” Rather than religious institutions being forced to provide these services directly, Obama decreed, their insurance companies would be compelled to do so — at no cost to the employee.

While making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said, in essence, that insurance companies should be happy to give these services away “free” since it costs less not to have babies than it does to have them. As for the president, he clearly believes his power to dictate such things under Obamacare trumps the Constitution’s authority to stop him.

Do not believe for a minute that Barack Obama intends anything but a wholesale takeover of this nation’s health care system. He is on record as favoring a single-payer plan similar to what is in place in Canada and Great Britain.

The president is fully aware that Obamacare’s mandates are driving up the cost of private health insurance, thereby ultimately forcing all Americans into a one-size-fits-all government run plan. Obama also knows that many religious organizations are self-insuring. That means that the costs associated with health care for their employees come directly out of the pockets of the church itself.

Obama is a master divider

There may be a difference of opinion between Catholic doctrine and the teachings of most evangelical churches on the issue of birth control, but these denominations are in lockstep on the issue of refusing to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. Some of their leaders have sworn to go to prison rather than violate this principle.

Obama is a master divider, and I believe that once he has convinced a majority of American women that contraception is a “right” that should be free, he can then divide people of faith against one other and against their own church leaders. He also believes that persuading a few liberal Catholic groups to support his “compromise” ends the discussion. Someone compared this to forcing all Jews to eat pork chops just because some of them don’t keep kosher.

It is long past time that Christian leaders stood up in their pulpits and declared that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote against God. Just imagine if every Bible believing minister in America made that announcement to their congregations the Sunday before the election. Then, try to imagine what a second Obama term might look like.