Obama the Fool?

I am tempted to go with the story that Obama wasn't told anything about anything and that he's the most incompetent president we've ever had.  I mean please, the man never held a real job in his life and certainly has had no experience leading or managing anything before being thrust into the position of leading the most powerful country on the planet.  And lets not forger that our President sure knows how to occupy his time with activities other than governing, like celebrity parties and golf.

But given the kind of Imperial Presidency Obama has attempted to pursue during his first term, I am not so sure he would leave every decision and action to his underlings.  He may not be able to surround himself with actually competent advisors, but I suspect they are all quite willing to provide him the cover and "reasonable deniability" he is now falling back on. 

Time will tell whether he will be given a pass on all the outrageous tactics his administration has used since he took office, or whether his management house of cards will fall and people will recognize him for what he is: an unscrupulous hack who uses Chicago-style tactics to intimidate and hamstring his opponents.

Four Outstanding Benghazi Questions

No matter who is doing the reporting, no one seems to include the full list of issues with the attack on our consulate in Benghazi resulting in the deaths 4 Americans. I want to make sure we don't lose track of any of the questions the Obama administration refuses to answer. 

#1 - Who made the stand-down order? Why didn't they send in the FEST to assist the personnel there?

#2 - Why was the security so light given the recent attack on the facility and on British facilities nearby, especially on 9/11?

#3 - a State Department whistleblower has been retaliated against by senior management. Who directed the demotion of Mr Hicks?

#4 - The talking points were deliberately prepared to mislead the American people. Who decided to falsely blame the attack on the YouTube video?

Patriot bloggers and members of the twitterverse have kept this story alive over the past 8 months.  They will not rest or drop this story until Americans get the answers we deserve.  

But he didn't mean us!

Ok, I will admit that I am deriving some level of enjoyment from the fact that so many Obama supporters are shocked to see a cut in their paychecks as a result of the expired payroll tax cut. I mean gee, what did they think would happen? That he would really only support tax increases for "the rich"? 

Joseph Curl shares a number of amusingly ill-informed comments in his Washington Times article Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases 

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes"

Part of me wonders how people can be so clueless about the workings of government in Washington - don't they read the news? - but I guess the fact that a majority of people did not even know what the fiscal cliff is, means I shouldn't be surprised.  Maybe this small tax increase will act as a wake up call to what will happen across the board in the not-to-distant future if the current spending track continues.  But I'm not holding my breath.

You STILL didn't build that

Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K).  Why?  Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates.  Because he wants to punish success.  Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that! 

This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned.  It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher.  Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it.  Maybe that's a forgivable sin. 

And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.