Obama himself has insisted that though it may appear the opposite, he would prefer that the United States stay out of corporate affairs. Let us keep in mind that he said this just as GM was being led to the lethal injection chamber by Obama’s own team. Let’s face it, being owned by the United States government at this point is akin to a death sentence - just one more tumor devouring the host. What next? We’ve taken on the banks (who are still wandering aimlessly down Wall Street growling for braaaaaiiinnns), the automakers, the auto PARTS makers, the insurance companies; we have, at this point, even taken on ourselves. You did understand that this is what the Federal Reserve decision to buy Treasury bills on a massive scale equates to, right? Just making sure we are on the same page here.

How is that working out, by the way? Badly. The consensus amongst the armchair economists is that the bond market has begun its not-so-delicate unraveling and will shortly implode. Without this, one of the last “safe” investments remaining in a tumultuous and almost hallucinatory global financial market, Obama will have few options left to fund his promises, like the $787 billion Stimulus (no, it hasn’t been paid for).

But let us set aside the financial crisis momentarily and ignore the dollar’s red flags. Obama’s true challenge, disregarding the rest of the noise, is still ahead. Soon, he will have to start considering who he would like to replace Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed.

Bernanke’s term expires on January 31, 2010 and Obama’s people have certainly made it clear that the President does not intend to keep him in his post beyond that date. The first sign Obama wasn’t too keen on another term for Helicopter Ben? Sticking Timmy the Two Bit Tax Cheat Geithner in the Treasury, leaving ex Harvard President Larry Summers’ calendar free for “Take Over the Federal Reserve” on February 1st, 2010.

So, you say?

So, Larry Summers is, as one blogger put it, “a walking, talking conflict of interest.” Summers has collected millions in speaking fees from firms like Citigroup (multiple bailouts ring a bell?), Goldman Sachs (NY Fed/Goldman scandal sound familiar?), and Bank of America (CEO Ken Lewis working with ex Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to possibly mislead investors, anyone?).

The New York Times paints a lovely picture of Summers saying “Mr. Summers, who will be 54 on Nov. 30, is universally described as brilliant, but is also renowned for being arrogant, occasionally rude and sometimes difficult to work with.” The article goes on to discuss Summers’ infamous reputation as a sexist after “girls don’t do economics” comments were, according to him, taken out of context some years ago.

All of this being said, please do not misconstrue my feelings for Ben Bernanke. Though a declared Republican, he does not subscribe to the exuberant idealism his predecessor Alan Greenspan brought to the Fed Chairman position. Someone described Bernanke’s politicism as being “asexually Republican” - the Ken doll with a bump of plastic under his suit and no expressed or obvious political affiliation to be found. Printing the United States into bankruptcy is certainly not a Republican trait I am familiar with.

So it cannot be Ben Bernanke’s politics which would motive President Obama to let his term expire. And even when we get rid of Bernanke, he’ll still stay on at the Fed board through 2020. 2020 until we can get rid of this money-printing manic depressive!

The Fed is failing and hard (see Treasury bills above). Whether or not this burden should rest entirely on Bernanke’s shoulders has not yet been decided. From the eyes of the funny-money-hungry Obama administration, it appears as though that doesn’t matter. Perhaps Bernanke doesn’t print quickly enough to keep up with President Obama’s promises and Summers will be better equipped to implode what remains of the dollar?

This will be interesting to watch. I sincerely hope Mr Obama manages to find a Fed Chairman who at least knows how to pay his taxes; if he picks a 7th tax cheat, and to head the Fed none the less!, I will have officially lost my faith in any chance this administration has at digging us out of this total economic disaster.

In reality, Meghan’s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.

Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely).

Two, Contrasting Perspectives

So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.

In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn’t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I’d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.

This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.

The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it’s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama’s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.

Clinging to the Outer Fringes

Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat’s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That’s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy’s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.

The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn’t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I’d advise against such a move.

If you follow the Democratic model, you’ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy — John Kerry — to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.

A State of Shear Dormancy

When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don’t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we’ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets.

What simply doesn’t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.

As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain’s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn’t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.

To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement’s heart and soul. It’s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America’s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.

Conservatives, for what it’s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America’s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.

It’s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.

While destruction of human life for scientific benefit is surely reprehensible, the newly minted restrictions are paramount in that they represent Obama’s first attempt to remain somewhat neutral on a domestic issue of importance.

From the relatively unpopular bailout, which was pushed into law despite Republican discontent, to incessant acts of misgovernment, this administration has taken somewhat of an anti-conservative stance on a cornucopia of social and political issues.  And while I still remain opposed to tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research, the results of the administration’s stance could be playing out in a much more detrimental way.  According to FOX News,

“Draft guidelines released by the National Institutes of Health reflect rules with broad congressional support, excluding more controversial sources such as cells derived from embryos created just for experiments.”

Despite Obama’s overt attempt at leftist appeasement through the overturning of President Bush’s executive order, it appears the president is considering the rally cries of the opposing party on this issue.

Perhaps this newfound openness to issues associated with the right to life movement is reflective of the synergy many conservatives are creating in their attempt to rally together against those who would seek to pursue looser restrictions on abortion (as if the words “restriction” and “abortion” exist conversantly in Obama’s legislative agenda). 

It is also quite possible that Obama recognizes his need to respect a massive portion of the populace’s rejection to his anti-life stances.  Either way, this is somewhat of a step in the right direction.

Some scientists are, no doubt, disappointed.  While many had hoped for no restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic research, the National Institutes of Health is requiring that all cells used must come from “…clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.”

Aside from Obama’s first, and thus far only, compromise, the most ironic portion of the new regulatory system is as follows (as per FOX News):

“The guidelines also demand that the woman or couple who donate the original embryo give proper informed consent. There are other options for such donors, such as donating the embryo to another infertile woman, and all must be explained. The donation must be voluntary, without pressure from scientists.”

These regulations are surely a step in the right direction.  With many claiming that embryonic stem cells are a hopeless endeavor, and with scientists finding more useful and less controversial methods of using and extracting stem cells (from amniotic fluid, by adapting adult stem cells, from umbilical chords, and without harming a fetus), one wonders why Democrats are behind the times in their incessant urge to pursue this method.

Still, it is encouraging to note that the government is not deregulating to the point of no return.  While I am hopeful that common sense and logic lead the president and Congressional Democrats toward the realization of more optimal and viable options, I’ll take this compromise and pray for more.

And as ironic as it stands, I must congratulate President Obama for making his first attempt at moderate governance.  Now, let’s hope he does the same in other sociopolitical realms.

Forgive my rant; but this deranged mass of human waste dressed as a human being, Garofalo sickens me with the rhetoric that comes out of her sub-human gargantuan swamp of a mouth. Anyone who takes this worthless parasite serious has got some serious problems. I sure am glad that no one even watches Olbermann anyway. He’s quite the idiot himself.

Just yesterday, in an interview with The Atlantic, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel could go it alone and attack Iran if the country went nuclear. He said in unusually blunt language (according to the article) of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran” … and dammit, he is absolutely right.  A nuclear Iran would surely wreak havoc not only in the Middle East but the world abroad.

He also said that “The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons … and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack.”  This will prove to be Obama’s first major test in the Middle East.

The issue, in my opinion, is not Israel’s Military capability. Foreign leadership across the globe knows that Israel does not play games when it comes to protecting their land from foreign invasion. Past history is clear that those who attack Israel get dealt with very badly – no holds barred, no protesting from Code Pink, no congressional approval, no remorse.  The question here is simple.  Does Netanyahu have the stomach to launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? I think he does.

Now will someone from Mossad go shut Chavez the hell up? His big mouth rhetoric is sickening to my ears.

Tags: Iran, Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mossad, Obama, pre-emptive strike, nuclear

Well the answer is simple, and if I’ve got to explain to you what is wrong with last night’s appearance, perhaps you’re not grown up enough to be using the computer without supervision. Turn it off, curl up into a ball, and commence to existing with your head in the sand, k?

In case you missed it, Bernanke’s national TV debut may be found in 3 parts here, here, and here. How cute, Helicopter Ben even cleaned up for his interview. That’s absolutely adorable.

Hidden in the midst of Bernanke’s interview, a little-noticed point on the Fed’s action in the face of economic crisis. While the conservatives continue to rail against the endless bailouts on behalf of helpless taxpayers believing that the Fed and Treasury promises are funded by actual taxpayer cash, Chairman Bernanke spilled the beans last night and said in no uncertain terms that his Fed is in fact funding bailouts using a process “more akin to printing money than it is borrowing.”

Average Joe reading this article, or even the most enlightened of conservatives, may not even think twice about the issue. Who cares? Isn’t it the Fed’s job to print money?

Under normal circumstances, absolutely. But in these conditions, Bernanke’s quantitative easing scheme will be the end of the dollar as we know it. Does he believe that inflation is so low that his agency has the right to crank up the presses to cover the incessant bailout of commercial banking interests at the detriment of our economy? This equates to criminal currency debasement and should absolutely be treated as such.

For our Fed chair to believe he can boldly state on national television just days after a warning from the United States’ largest creditor that we better not use the printing press to stem financial crisis is not only moronic but may send China reeling against our pleas for help in unloading our debt. And if China pushes back on Treasurys, we might as well consider the game over.

You as an American taxpayer have every right to be angry over the bailouts. And you should still believe that taxpayers are some how on the hook for this. But you as an American under the Federal Reserve’s control should be absolutely outraged to hear Bernanke boasting that his Fed is cranking up the press to the tune of some $2 trillion to cover its creative lending programs. AIG has fed at the government teat FOUR TIMES and funneling bailout funds to foreign banks due to its own irresponsible financial products risk management. But $2 trillion on the taxpayers’ behalf means little when the Fed is using the press to pump capital into floundering firms on your dime - the savings you’ve worked your life to put away? Doesn’t matter when the Fed has fully debased the currency. Is 97% of the dollar’s value lost since its inception in 1913 not enough?

The recession will only worsen moving forward if the Fed and Treasury continue to sabotage any hope at recovery by throwing billions more into the sinking ship.

Unemployment will continue to surge.

The Fed will continue to overstep its given powers by Congress and Congress will continue to allow such a fleecing until someone on Capitol Hill stops looking the other way and demands an audit of this private and essentially unregulated agency.

And Ben Bernanke will continue to crank up the press. Here’s to hoping China doesn’t notice or else we’re really in trouble.

As Americans cope with immense fiscal challenges, Congressional spending continues to spiral out of control. Living out Rahm Emanuel’s tweaked philosophy of never allowing “a serious crisis to go to waste,” Democrats are spending at an enigmatic rate – and some Republicans are following suite.

According to The Wall Street Journal, back in Nov. 2008 Emanuel told a group of corporate chief executives the following:“Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

These are not the words of a fiscally-conscious lawmaker. “Things” that could not be done before – like what? And if “things” could not be afforded before, how would the nation, in the midst of a financial melt-down, suddenly have the resources to finance said “things?”

Clearly, Emanuel is speaking about ideological policy here, not systematic reform. This is not the time to sacrifice the future by printing money for the purposes of furthering the Democratic perspective. The most recent bailout and the subsequent spending bill that has already cleared the Senate are so poorly comprised and so detrimental that they can only result from such an ill-focused outlook.

And perhaps most preposterous was Emanuel’s assertion that the current climate will foster the hopenchange, bi-partisan rhetoric that Obama thrived on during the campaign: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”

Good news? Silver lining? Despite such talk of bipartisanship, Washington is more divided than its been in decades, as the most recent stimulus had not one of the House’s 178 members voting in its favor. As Republicans and a small group of Democrats rally to control spending and vote down abuses, their colleagues have chosen to continue wasting tax-payer dollars, while abusing the powers that have been bestowed upon them by the American people.

Recent Fiscal Abuses

While most Americans are facing unemployment prospects and struggling to meet their most basic needs, out-of-touch Congressional members have slipped thousands of irrelevant pet projects into the latest spending bill that President Obama promises to sign.

Back in Sep. 2008, Obama said, “…when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely” – a promise he has already broken. One cannot help but wonder what happened to Obama’s campaign pledge to take “a scalpel” to bills that contain pork-barrel spending. Instead, massive spending and fiscal deviance have dominated.

At this rate, it’s becoming difficult to follow just how much money Congress has spent. First, there was the stimulus passed by Bush and the Democratic Congress at the end of 2008 (over $700 billion). Then came Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – cleverly entitled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Now, Congress is slated to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, intended to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is wrought with pork.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, it contains 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion. A mere glimpse at the projects that have been inserted showcases a lack of Congressional responsibility and moral fabric. In this case, both parties are to blame. While Democrats have been leading the charge to irresponsible spending, Republicans who have earmarks in the bill are jumping on board in hopes that their projects will be funded.

The irresponsibility is paramount. At a time when Americans are hurting, Rep. Jerrold Nadler has earmarked $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, with Sen. Lindsay Graham is attempting to filter $950,000 to the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Additionally, $800,000 was earmarked for the purposes of “oyster rehabilitation” – whatever that means. And these are only a few examples (remember, there are nearly 9,000 to choose from). Clearly, these pork-laced projects have little to do with helping the American government meet its operating costs and everything to do with unpatriotic, self-interest.

Now, more than ever, America’s lawmakers need to cut unnecessary costs. As President Obama asks Americans to use less electricity, to trust his administration and to have faith in the system, he must also ask Congress – and his inner conscious – to make similar concessions. Our nation is deep in debt and the longer the people stand idle, the more tattered the country’s future will be. Now is the time for rhetoric-free, action-based fiscal conservation.

For more information about Billy Hallowell, go to www.williamhallowell.com.  For booking information about Billy and other speakers and programs, go to www.pathufindmedia.com. 

Granted, twitter only has about 14 million registered users but that number is growing exponentially month over month and I believe it will be mainstream in the next couple of years. Mark my words folks … the conservative movement has just begun!

If you enjoyed this post, plese follow me on Twitter.

First and foremost, we’ve been hearing for weeks now that plans must be supported, reactions must be quick, and trust must be established between the government and the taxpayer through “transparency and accountability” - Tim Geithner, ever the revolutionary, announced his financial stability program and was even kind enough to provide a website for Americans to keep an eye on his little project. How cute. They grow up so fast, don’t they?

But the reality is that the American economy needs sound, well-thought-out, creative solutions to our financial malaise. Some crackpot scheme pulled out of thin air that involves an insurmountable pile of debt on top of existing American obligations is NOT that sound solution. Forcing a bill bloated with pork and questionable earmarks ($80 million for a new Health and Social Services building? Seriously? How does this help us?!) through Congress, threats from the wicked witch of the far left, and a mysterious midnight release of said unsound “solution” just hours before the final vote leads me to believe that these guys simply have no clue. They are scrambling here. And worse, the world already realizes that America may not be able to keep its promise of economic stability to its citizens without drastic measures that will certainly compromise our already instable currency.

Where will this money come from?

Thin air. Just like the rest of it. And the pressure on the bond market will most certainly push Treasurys off their already precarious position.

The Federal Reserve cannot possibly support any percentage of this beast of a plan, let alone the entire $1 trillion shebang, without making some dangerous adjustments in money supply and policy. The money supply has seen a 30% increase in the last four months and bond markets are testing the Fed to see just how far they can be pushed. These are all ominous signs of what is to come.

Time to turn things around and introduce a truly intelligent solution may be running out, and who do you think will be left holding the bag when the ship sinks?

In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet.  In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (”was” because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes.  Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):

“Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,” Obama said. He added that the “mistake” should not diminish the “many contributions” Daschle has made to the country.

Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of “chief performance officer.”  Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it.  And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:

“Obama’s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.”

The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption.  So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).

Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes.  The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities.  And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.  Talk about one-upping one’s self.

Clearly, the American people should have some concerns.  One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error.  But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best.  Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.

Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats).  Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve.

Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far.  According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders.  As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions –58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.

And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year.  While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).

Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task.  They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle.  At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervently before shipping funding off to other countries.  Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.

Obama needs to get with the program.  Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy.  We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.

Read more from journalist and commentator Billy Hallowell at www.williamhallowell.com.