Yes, you read the headline correctly. Barack Obama has decided not to run from his pathetic economy but to embrace it. And he want’s you to do the same.

Unfortunately, many of the imbeciles of our society, the fawning drones who gasp at his every word, are buying into this Obama farce. The State of the Union speech was generally received poorly but out on the campaign trail in Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada and Arizona the “Economy Built to Last” theme is receiving rave reviews.

Nearly 6,000 Intel employees in Arizona – young, well-educated technology sophisticates – applauded and cheered Mr. Obama from start to finish. Even when he ripped into those awful American companies with factories overseas, such as their own employer. “An America where we build stuff and make stuff and sell stuff all over the world.”

You might think the best and the brightest would be beyond Mr. Obama’s crude populist pitch. You of course would be wrong. And the Republican’s better wake up very soon to the fact that Obama’s approach will do better than the data driven, with charts and graphs will bore audiences and their eyes will soon glaze over.

Any citizen barely awake, squinting at the text of Obama’s “An Economy Built to Last” will notice what fails to appear – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, entitlements and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Obama notice nothing of economics but he does know how to read a prepared text of of his teleprompter to excite crowds allowing him to once again convince people that he does, in fact, know best. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope” the word “empathy” was at the heart of his moral code. He will use empathy throughout his speeches to gain the confidence of the crowds. Audacious, indeed!

Candidates in the GOP have a real problem. Obama can go across the country and slam big business and at the same time claim a close relationship with the jobless. No problem, he simply does it. Republican’s don’t get it and they don’t combat it. Team Obama knows this because the predictable Republicans will endlessly quote economic data. Numbers, numbers, numbers – data, data, data – I can hear the audience snoring.

“An economy built to last also means we’ve got to renew American values: fair play, shared responsibility.”

Get used to hearing this, the audiences love it, standing, cheering, applauding. It’s all populist garbage but you’re going to hear it repeatedly if you dare to listen.

Mitt Romney is currently surging and expected to win the GOP nomination. Mr. Romney is a stiff, horrible public speaker and does not get the crowds going wild with his data driven mantra. Mitt Romney is boring most likely will not go after Barack Obama in the way he has gone after Newt Gingrich. Team Romney will not go after Obama’s jugular and this is a problem.

Rick Santorum, on the other hand, demonstrated in the final Florida how it’s done when he repeatedly took Gingrich and Romney to the wood shed for a good beating. Without sending a tough, heartfelt message to American’s you won’t get them excited. Republicans are expecting Obama and his record to win the election for them. This is false hope.

We have 9 months remaining before the November elections and numbers may implode further in the economy but how much of the real data be seen in papers, on TV or the radio. Who will be listening to economics 101?

Rick Santorum is the only GOP candidate who understands that Obama will attempt to marginalize the Republicans. I don’t see a way up for Mr. Santorum but he’s getting my vote in the primaries. I stick to my principles, I can always hold my nose and vote in November as I did in 2008.

Boring won’t win, a real, tough message going after Barack Obama in it’s entirety will win. The big question is – when will Republicans figure this out? The establishment never will, they don’t mind being in the minority as long as they keep their jobs. This is a leadership problem and it won’t go away anytime soon.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

No Republican’s in Congress have the intestinal fortitude to start proceedings for impeachment of Barack Obama, or at the very least, begin legal proceedings against VP Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. Why you ask? Here is an article printed in the Wall Street Journal by Leif Babin a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago.

*****************

America’s premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven’t remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration’s lack of discretion was on display again at last week’s State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: “Good job tonight, good job tonight.” Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. “That was a good thing tonight,” he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the “anonymous U.S. officials” to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I’ve had in recent days, it’s clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what’s at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

*****************

Thank you for your unwavering service and courage Mr. Babin.

How so many American citizens can applaud Obama, bundle millions in campaign donations, support him and vote for him is hard for me to understand. I can’t get my arms around the fact that so many anti-Military, anti-American’s would like to see our country destroyed yet call themselves patriots and American. It’s unthinkable but we all better understand that Barack Obama needs to be run out of office. Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States of America.

Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

********************

“The man of system . . . is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its part, without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it.

He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board . . .”

~ Adam Smith ~ The Theory of Moral Sentiments , 1759

********************

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) had a very specific message for Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day dinner.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

Well Done!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

5th UPDATE: Pat Buchanan: Reagan White House saw Newt as ‘something of a political opportunist’

4th UPDATE: Sarah Palin Says It Like It Is

3rd UPDATE: Must Read – As all of this unravels Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator provides excellent arguments of why the anti-Newt claims are false.

2nd UPDATE: At the bottom of this post I have a statement from Michael Reagan on this issue.

UPDATE: To be fair and countering my blistering commentary on Newt Gingrich below, friend and fellow blogger Professor William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection writes much the opposite with links to other articles defending Gingrich and separating out of context words written recently. Read it here. Make sure you also read what I had to say below, complete with videos. Thanks!

I’ve always been Conservative even growing up in a blue-collar Democrat voting family. Ronald Reagan was merely an extension of by political beliefs, both fiscal and social. Ronald Reagan made me feel good about America, he made America feel optimistic. Ronald Reagan was a leader. I yearn for the day when America has a leader like Ronald Reagan.

Which brings me to Newt Gingrich. I was nearly ready to endorse Gingrich as GOP nominee, while holding my nose. Of course, I’ve been close to endorsing Mitt Romney while also holding my nose. The problem is this – the GOP is not offering a candidate worth my vote. I like Rick Santorum but I don’t like the way he ran his campaign and don’t believe he has the money or organization backing to rise to the top.

I was recently asked – then who? My answer was Stephen Harper, with tongue in cheek, implying the best bet may be to ready the passports and move to Canada before tyranny continues and Barack Obama gets another term or we get more RINOs in Congress and the White House. I don’t believe Mitt Romney when he says he will repeal Obamacare as he changes positions so frequently it’s like the weather in and around Chicago.

Newt Gingrich has supported the individual mandate for healthcare, he sat on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi and supported cap and trade taxes as a cure for global warming that doesn’t exist. He attacked one of my favorites in Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who really does produce bold plans and can express them better than anyone in Congress or the White House or in the current GOP campaign.

But now it has come to light that Newt Gingrich repeatedly attacked Ronald Reagan during the 1980s while President Reagan was leading the country and the Republican Party. There is no putting his words back in his mouth or spinning this away with charm and intellect. Ugh, ugh – no way, no how.

If you’ve watched the GOP debates than you heard Gingrich constantly wrapping himself around the Ronald Reagan mantle – his close relationship with the President, how he is a “bold Reagan Conservative.” Even telling anyone who will listen how he helped end the Cold War, end the Soviet Union, and create millions of jobs. President Reagan helped create an environment for entrepreneurs to create jobs – no President or Congressman ever creates job. Mr. Reagan would never take that kind of credit but Newt Gingrich is a professional at self praise. My mother always said – “Self praise stinks, have some humility.”

At the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how:

“I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president.”

And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan’s, added:

“We helped defeat the Soviet empire.” Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.”

In an interview on CNBC, Gingrich recently emphasized his close identification with the nation’s 40th president:

“I’ve done a movie on Ronald Reagan called ‘Rendezvous With Destiny.’ Callista and I did. We’ve done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in ’74. I’m very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan.”

Indeed Mr. Gingrich is happy to talk about his “close relationship” with Ronald Reagan. What politician running as a “Bold Conservative” would not?

How about when Gingrich went to the House floor during the Gipper’s second White House term and declared the president’s Soviet policy a “failure.” Here is what Gingrich said:

“Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. … The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan.”

As reported in the Congressional Record, Gingrich had found Reagan responsible for our national “decay”:

“Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda.”

Here is Gingrich in 1986:

“Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.”

Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.”

But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.”

Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

In 1988 Gingrich said George H.W. Bush Won’t Win If He Runs To Continue Reaganism:

These types of outright contradictions involving exactly what Congressman Gingrich in fact said during the time President Reagan was in office and exactly what Candidate Gingrich now offers as fictitious recollections associated with his unwavering allegiance to President Reagan reminds me of one of the past speaker’s personal broadsides in opposition to Washington DC.

“In this cold and ruthless city,” he once said, “the center of hypocrisy is Capitol Hill.”

Newt Gingrich is quite clearly an authority regarding both topics. Bold hypocrisy, indeed!

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan. Michael says such claims are false.

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

“I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

If you listen to the news on radio or TV you’re being told the economy is recovering. You’re getting little snippets of information about the unemployment rate going down while leaving out real numbers for underemployed, part-time employment and people who have gone of the unemployment rolls for a variety of reasons.

There are other numbers to look at when considering the state of the economy and when put into the real world of economics you get a different picture – one based on real numbers.

The final, pathetic growth number for 2011 has reported Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010. The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

If the economy is so wonderful then why, under the administration of Barack Obama, a nation of dependency is being created. Today Obama is out telling anyone who will listen is that he is not the “food stamp president” and is going to his old refrain blaming George W. Bush. Numbers post on this site don’t lie and the factual data displayed in the above graphic provide a real picture discounting one more Obama lie.

“First of all, I don’t put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government.”

America has been heading off the cliff for many years from bad, big government policies and both parties are too blame, and all administrations. The fact is, Barack Obama and his minions have accelerated the decline.

Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama’s first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.

Keep your ears and eyes wide open America – Democrats and their leader will lie, lie and lie so you better get the facts. Democrats and Republicans have all been guilty of turning the US towards the Left but the Marxists are putting our destruction on a bullet train to hell.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

I’ve already discussed the Keystone XL pipeline situation here and here. It’s apparent the Obama administration has a problem with the oil and natural gas industry although they are deemed safe to the environment through mountains of impact studies and create thousands of new jobs.

A little reported lawsuit in which the US Attorney for North Dakota hauled seven oil and natural gas companies into federal court for killing 28 migratory birds that were found dead near oil waste lagoons last year has been ruled upon. Wind production companies were not found within this suit and not presumed “guilty” of similar circumstances. Imagine that.

Continental Resources was accused of violating the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act because “on or about May 6, 2011 in the District of North Dakota” the company “did take [kill] one Say’s Phoebe,” of the tyrant flycatcher bird family. Brigham Oil & Gas is accused of killing two Mallard ducks. The Class B misdemeanors carry fines of up to $15,000 for each dead bird and up to six months in prison.

Now, about the wind industry, which the environmentalists and Barack Obama are wild about. Each year the wind industry kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. At the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Northern California, some 5,000 wind turbines each year kill scores of golden and bald eagles, which are highly protected under federal law. In fact, according to the September 13 draft of its new “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would give the wind industry “assurances” of law enforcement discretion if it adheres to certain safeguards and then inadvertently kills birds.

Gas and oil had been prosecuted under the “Migratory Bird Act.” The criminal charges carried fines and potential prison sentences. A recent ruling by US district Judge Daniel Hovland contrasted “incidental and unintended” deaths during “legal, commercially-useful activity” with “hunting and poaching.”

The court rejected US Attorney Timothy Purdon’s “expansive interpretation of the law” because it “would yield absurd results”:

If the government’s case carried the day, “many everyday activities become unlawful—and subject to criminal sanctions—when they cause the death of pigeons, starlings, and other common birds.”

The court wrote that among the potential felonious bird-killing habits are cutting brush and trees, planting and harvesting crops, driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows and . . . “owning a cat.” The court noted that cats kill “hundreds of millions” of birds each year and cars kill 60 million, while windows kill 97 million to 976 million. In short, every American could be an unwitting criminal bird killer.

What we have here is “selective prosecution” by the Obama administration. Judge Hovland also pointed out that windmills kill “roughly 39,000 birds annually.” No lawsuits can be found against the windmill industry under the Migratory Bird Act.

Although I thought the Dodo bird was extinct it appears Obama and his ilk are the reincarnation of the bird. At least in name.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

One More Term - Mission Accomplished - Obama's Work in Progress

This evening, Americans that hear the State of the Union may view the process of the rhetorical leader having a talent for phantasm. Barack Obama is going to take the floor within the Capitol in hopes of laying the foundation for a political discussion based on his conditions – one in which he stands upon emotionally charged appeals, populism, as well as class warfare, not necessarily the actual unstable ground associated with his eroding track record. Looking back at him is a United States Senate, which has over the past 1,000 days neglected to complete a budget – a real shirking of their essential responsibility to remain rigorous stewards of the taxpayers’ money.

Obama definitely will depend on the potency of his particular words and phrases. Along with flourish, he’ll tell the tale of America by way of a progressive’s eyes – one in which “fairness” assumes a whole new interpretation, in which America’s foremost ideals tend to be dismissed, and where the reality with regards to a failed presidency will be ignored within the shadows of our country’s combined memory. Obama will communicate through the higher ground associated with his vaulted branch. The real question is whether or not the stature conferred through his office allows him to avoid the growing deficits, absolute depths associated with lack of employment, or even mile after mile regarding job-killing laws and regulations which his Administration has wrought upon the American public.

Prior to thinking about Obama’s record, consider first his particular personal message – in which economic populism stands out as the center of America’s principles, where the United States government needs to be the guarantor associated with equal outcomes and therefore “fairness” involving accomplishment must be determined through scores of bureaucrats inside the beltway of Washington DC. This is a design that Mr. Obama presented from a presentation recently in Osawatomie, Kansas, and it’s one he intends to revisit this evening. This particular perspective reaches the foundation associated with Barack Obama’s progressive ideology. It’s not, nevertheless, the philosophy which our nation had been created.

America is actually exceptional since it’s committed to the basic principle associated with common individual freedom: that all people are essentially equal naturally as well as equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This basic principle as well as the Constitutional design of law which enlivens this include the basis of the American Dream.

Precisely what is really significant regarding the United States would be that the scale of opportunity has become accessible to every person. Consequently, poverty has become significantly reduced. Far more significant, it’s no longer a perpetual problem where there isn’t any actual potential to free yourself from.

The “ladder of opportunity” prevails to ensure that individuals might utilize their God-given abilities and talents as a way to better themselves and engage in the American dream. This is the independence which makes the United States exceptional. Barack Obama, however, doesn’t symbolize this dream. Alternatively, as he makes obvious, he is convinced that it’s by way of federal government design in which modern society may progress – by means of far more federal government power, federal education services, economic restrictions, as well as national infrastructure spending, all financed through “fair” taxation upon “wealthy” Americans.

This kind of progressivism has its own origins within one hundred years of history and a hundred years of disappointment. However, the nation needn’t search back in the history of time to discover the facts. They merely need to observe Barack Obama’s track record associated with the last three years – the truth will certainly receive little mention in tonight’s speech.

Obama introduced a totally progressive plan by using his increase of the state with Obamacare, his trillion-dollar stimulus bill, the federal government takeover of the automotive sector, the expansion of regulations within the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform legislation, the Crony Capitalism from the Solyndra scandal, as well as the unlawful appointments to the unrestrained Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. The end result: 13.1 million Americans continue to be out of work, job development continues to be abysmal and Obama’s assurance to transform the US economic climate is now unsatisfied.

At the same time, the Senate has generally acceded towards Obama’s platform while leaving unfinished the budgeting system over the past 1,000 days. Rather than respecting the citizen’s capital and placing it to the proper use, the Senate has chosen to pass short-term “business as usual” continuing resolutions, one after another, whereas federal government wasting continuously escalates, deficits are generally bursting, the nation’s credit standing is in peril, Social Security and Medicare have been in turmoil, and generations to come remain at risk.

Obama’s “populist” message is made to entice the American individuals – this is exactly what all American political figures attempt to accomplish. It’s reasonable, nevertheless to consider just how the American people have fared under the Obama’s progressive policies. It’s difficult to overlook the volume of jobless Americans, the sluggish economy, the business owners who are reluctant to develop and expand, all while job opportunities are diminished. It’s clear that Obama is not going to mention his “achievements.”

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Today marks the 1,000 day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, our new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Straight below I wrote about Barack Obama’s decision to “postpone” the Keystone XL Pipeline after the State Department (State presided over the Keystone XL review because it would cross the 49th parallel) determined in 2010 and then again last year that the project would have “no significant impacts” on the environment, following exhaustive studies.

This is significant because the environmental lobby rained down on the White House with protests and the State Department suddenly changed its position announced that a rerouting in Nebraska was necessary, which implied yet another round of environmental impact studies forecasting this would take another 15 months.

Keystone will run 2,000 miles but the area in dispute is 100 miles in Nebraska. A rerouting plan has been in the works since late November 2011. 20,000 direct jobs and at least 100,000 indirect jobs are hanging in the balance, not to mention the potential energy supply to America.

Republicans in Congress are at fault by attaching a rider to the December 23, 2011 payroll-tax bill that instructed Obama to make his determination within 60 days on whether the oil pipeline crossing the US border is in the national interest.

Guess what – Obama decided it’s in the national interest to oppose a project that creates jobs, economy, energy security, foreign policy advantages, employment, and trade. Keeping in mind all the impact studies have said their is no negative impact on the environment.

However, Mr. Obama may have sidestepped the rule of law in his decision. This make no difference to “The One” since he shreds portions of the Constitution frequently.

Back to that pesky rider.

1.  ”. . . the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 . . .
2. . . . and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” Second, “any modification” to the route “shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement . . .”
3. “. . . no further Federal environmental review shall be required.”

If we are to follow the law, as Obama failed to make national interest a part of his determination as part of the rider, “the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline . . . shall be in effect by operation of law.”

We are left with the following questions:

Will Mr. Obama be made to obey the letter and spirit of the law? and Will the Republicans in Congress enforce the rider?

If current events are any indication the spineless Republicans will back off, not assert themselves and allow Barack Obama to disregard the law. What’s new?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: