The Administration

As I understand it, the Tea Party is primarily concerned about a federal government that is too powerful, too intrusive, too wasteful and too arrogant.

If that is the case — and I think it is — I have an issue for them.

Over the weekend, the Obama/Holder Justice Department decided that they were going to exert the government’s power over people who play poker for a living.

They closed down the three main poker sites that are the biggest destination for American poker players, and have indicted anybody associated with it.

As President Obama addresses the nation this week in a speech on deficit reduction, just what are Americans to think? For starters, he created his own debt commission, and when its members released their recommendations in December, he chose to do nothing with them. In his State of the Union address in January, Obama chose to emphasize "investments" in education and infrastructure rather than pressing for meaningful deficit reduction. His budget, released in February, confirmed that tackling our fiscal crisis was a job either for another day or for Republicans.

President Obama has officially launched his reelection campaign for 2012. His strongest constituency remains American blacks, while many others have wandered in the wilderness or have abandoned him for now.

In light of the statistics, with blacks only representing slightly more than one-eighth of the population, Obama would probably do well to steer clear of race in general during his upcoming reelection season. After all, he was elected as the president of the United States, which includes blacks, but the other 87 percent of the country as well. Even if every single black person in the United States (including those in prison) voted against him, there's still another nearly seven-eighths of the population to attempt to sway.

If anything, this should be given more thought. The more likely scenario is that many blacks will continue to harbor unrealistic expectations and it would be wiser to cater to the U.S populace in general. A disillusioned black community is likely to do what it has always done: vote Democrat, typical and not very powerful, because there's no need to try to get their vote. Additionally, if they feel the way they've felt, they'll probably just not even bother voting.

Perhaps some may say it's actually problematic that Obama's skin happens to be dark, because that means he's expected to be a black Superman. He is expected to do the "black" thing in any situation where race is involved. What might not be so obvious is that the "black" thing isn't agreed upon within the black community, so the "black" thing could arguably be anything, would definitely be prejudiced and, coming from the president would actually be, dare I say it, racist!

This obviously puts Obama in a difficult situation. It didn't help that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as he was taking office (before he'd had a chance to do anything). The expectations upon his shoulders were so staggering, it's quite possible that they were impossible expectations. The midterm elections showed how the populace was unhappy with his performance under those extremely high demands. Stay tuned!

First, let me emphasize that while I greatly respect A.B. Stoddard*, I disagree with almost every word of her column today on a factual basis, as well as an opinion basis.

The president never wanted a government shutdown. He never said he wanted a government shutdown. He never implied he wanted a government shutdown. He never just about said he wanted a government shutdown. Never. Not once. Not ever. Period.

For the last three weeks the president and his staff have been deeply involved, through the vice president and the highest levels of the administration, alongside the majority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and their staffs, in budget negotiations. Period.

It is interesting how well and how fast Rand Paul (R), the new senator from Kentucky, has fit in. He comes after long advance behind his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who might be considered the Father Abraham of the Tea Party movement. His speeches on the Senate floor are thoughtful, informed by history and tradition and appropriate to current events, and so are his frequent conversations with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business. He calls on the heroic Cassius M. Clay as his avatar, the Kentucky anti-slavery iconoclast who placed a Bible and bowie knife on the podium before he spoke, and frequently used the knife. And time appears to be opening up to him.

As rebel fighters flee under fire from a key town in eastern Libya, it’s now apparent that the Obama administration will not forcefully remove Gadhafi from power. Whew. Guess who’s resting easy in Tripoli! Sure, the Obama administration wants the tyrant tossed. Why else would U.S. warplanes be pounding his military? But dropping a hint and showing him the door are two different things. While allied forces convening in London today insist Gadhafi must go, they are clueless as to how they can achieve this end goal.

Hello out there?

You may not agree with him, but you must admit: President Obama made the case for American intervention in Libya strongly and clearly.

He told us why he authorized the use of military force, at the request of the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council: to stop the slaughter of the Libyan people by Gadhafi’s forces.

He reported our success so far in stopping Gadhafi in his tracks and turning all operations over the NATO. The U.S. will now continue our involvement only in a supporting role.

And he spelled out our ultimate goal: to continue diplomatic and financial pressure on Gadhafi until he is forced out of power — without using the U.S. military to achieve regime change.

President Obama had a Bush moment last night. But I’m not talking about George W. Bush. I’m referring to his father. Obama’s explanation of why he won’t back the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi under a U.N. resolution was all about the limits of war by committee — the same constraints that prevented the military coalition put together by George H.W. Bush from going all the way to Baghdad in 1991.

It is often said that G.W. Bush decided to topple Saddam Hussein to make up for his father’s “failure" to overthrow the Iraqi dictator in the first Gulf War. In his speech last night, Obama pointed out that regime change in Iraq “took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. Read more...

The Donald has it all figured out. President Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.

He let us know on “Fox & Friends”: "You have no doctors that remember, you have no nurses — this is the president of the United States — that remember. Why can't he produce a birth certificate?"

Hmm — Trump declared on "The View" that Obama “grew up and nobody knew him."

“If I got the nomination, if I decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange," he said.

Poor Newt Gingrich. Hopefully he’s out of traction now and fully recovered from the self-inflicted whiplash stemming from his conflicting views of what the U.S. military role should be in Libya. It sure was spectacular to see Newt, as he vies for his party’s nomination to challenge the president, twisted in knots as he tried to take both sides of the debate.

You see, Newt was for the U.S. involvement in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya before he was against it.

Newt’s embarrassing contortions exposed the fallacy of the right’s obscene obsession with undermining the president and hoping for his (and the country’s) failure at every turn. It demonstrated the shortcomings of the “Agenda of No” practiced by Newt and his Newtonian lemmings in Congress. And it revealed that the Republican’s “no reason” policy on Libya — meaning it isn’t based in reason — ultimately will fail as the president continues to outline his vision and his authority.