Received via email:

I was eating lunch with a 6-year-old and I asked her, “What is the 20th of February?”

She said “President’s Day!”

She is a smart kid, so, I asked her, “What does President’s Day mean?”

I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln etc.

She replied, “President’s Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have one more year of unemployment.”

You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose.

It would be funny if it weren’t based on millions of people struggling to survive.

The has finally come. An Obama policy so bizarre that even the MSM can’t ignore it. Moreover, verbiage so outré that an MSM newscaster is compelled to rip Obama a new one like he was Barry Goldwater. Better yet, she does it extraordinarily well.

This is a beautiful thing to watch.

Even in light of the fearsome suspension of constitutional law proposed by Obama, this video made my day.

Even the Ragin’ Cajun says that the White House was “out of bounds” when it tried to schedule Obama’s “jobs” speech over the Republican debate.

“I do think this is a really big debate, and I think the White House was out of bounds . . . in trying to schedule a speech during a debate,” Carville said.

Given a “choice between watching a debate and the speech, I would have watched the debate and I’m not even a Republican or even close to being a Republican,” he said.

Click through to see the video. I love to watch Carville say something that I agree with … it happens so rarely.

Solar-cell maker Solyndra received over half a billion dollars in federally guaranteed loans in 2009 as part of Obama’s "stimulus" program. When they opened their second plant (which they could afford to do, having received this taxpayer funded windfall), Obama and Gov. Arnold visited the plant and made lots of flowery, very pretty speeches. Liberals swooned in ecstasy.

Today, 1,100 workers are being laid off and Solyndra is filing for Chapter 11. Which proves, yet again, that Big Government cannot create lasting, viable jobs in the free market, no matter how much money it prints.

Meanwhile, Obama is planning his big "jobs speech" to Congress next week. Which, according to this well-researched and often sadly funny article from WSJ, will be an almost exact duplicate of last year’s jobs speech.

So really, the biggest news about this year’s speech is Obama challenging, and then kowtowing to Republican leadership as to the date of the speech, as evidenced by this post from the left-wing Washington Post (emphasis in original):

By trying to big-foot the Republicans and then retreating, the president put an exclamation point on the complaints of his base. Weak. Incompetent. Unorganized. And those descriptors are from liberals. As for conservatives, they can hardly believe their good fortune. Obama has, more effectively than they could have hoped, demonstrated that the speech is largely a political stunt designed to put Republicans on the defensive rather than address our economic meltdown and fiscal woes.

Yeah, the WaPo actually wrote that.

The unfortunate thing is that the prez will no doubt be able to pull together a coalition of liberals, moderates, and turncoats that will once again spend massive amounts of money during the final campaign year that will do nothing except further bankrupt America.

Haver Analytics took a look at the numbers that came out of the Philly Fed reading on Thursday and the news is not good:

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank’s index of regional factory sector plunged this month. Today’s Philadelphia Fed General Activity index dropped to -30.7 from an unrevised 3.2 in July. The figure was well short of Consensus expectations for 4.2. …

Month-to-month deterioration occurred in each of the Fed’s component series with new orders and shipments falling the most. The employment series turned negative for the first time in twelve months. … The prices paid index fell to its lowest level since September. …

The separate index of expected business conditions in six months plunged to its lowest since November, 2008. Expectations for inventories, the workweek and capital expenditures fell precipitously.

Economist Daven Rosenberg took a look at the Philly Fed numbers, and is almost certain that another recession is inevitable (via Cullen Roche):

The Philly Fed index was the real shocker…. As the chart below illustrates, never before has the Philly Fed been at this level without there being a recession – will it really be “different this time around”? Well, Bill Dudley at the Fed seems to think so. Without going into the gory details, almost every component was negative – not just down, but below zero. This is a one in 10 event, and this breadth is itself consistent with a 90% chance of outright recession.

But Rosenberg, who has a pretty good track record on market predictions (including the 2007 recession and this year’s Treasury Bond rally),  goes further in an interview with Forbes:

Rosenberg, a longtime bear on the economy and the stock market, now says he is 99% sure we will have another recession by the end of next year.

He reasons that consumers have just begun clearing debt from their ledgers (see chart, right) and that as that deflationary process plays out, spending will slow, weighing on job growth. Adding to the pressure, government and the Federal Reserve are trying to wriggle out of the stimulus game.

"So we still have this credit contraction shock as it pertains to the broad consumer sector, and, going forward, no fiscal cushion," Rosenberg writes in a note to clients Tuesday.

Rosenberg adds that as the extent of the economic slowdown becomes apparent, the stock market may finally sag. The S&P 500, recently about 6% below its 52-week high at 1285, could test last summer’s lows near 1000, he says.

For the sake of every person out of work, for the sake of the increasing number of children caught up in the homelessness, for the sake of our abandoned veterans, I hope that Obama’s yet-another job creation plan is more successful than whatever he has done to date, but even the liberal Huffington Post doesn’t believe it.

But the same verbiage looks pretty good on the tee-shirts available here:

And this page is pretty entertaining, too.

Lew Rockwell posts the following matrix:

Anybody want to bet how many of those are left today? Liberals want to tax the rich, yet their policies will eventually drive them out of existence.

Via email:

The Donkey

Barrack Obama was touring the countryside in his chauffeur-driven limo.
Suddenly, a donkey jumps out onto the road, they hit it full on and the car comes to a stop.
Obama says to the chauffeur: ‘You get out and check, you were driving.’
The chauffeur gets out, checks and reports that the animal is dead.
‘You were driving; go and tell the farmer,’ says Obama.

Hours later, the chauffeur returns totally plastered, hair ruffled with a big grin on his face.
‘My god, what happened to you?’ asks Obama.

The chauffeur replies: ‘When I got there, the farmer opened his best bottle of whiskey, the wife gave me a slap-up meal and the daughter made love to me.’
‘What on earth did you say to them?’ asks Obama.

‘I knocked on the door, and when it was answered, I said to them, ‘I’m Barrack Obama’s chauffeur and I’ve just killed the jackass.

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who y’are. Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the jackasses in the story.

Song by Christina Houston:

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who y’are.

Fortune explains Obama’s budget in five easy steps. In part:

In the new budget, some 92% of the total deficit reduction from 2012 to 2020 comes from tax increases. Counting on bigger revenues, as opposed to lower spending, sends a dangerous signal to the markets for two reasons. First, its extremely difficult to forecast how much higher rates on existing levies, as well newly-imposed taxes, will actually collect. Higher taxes tend to dampen future growth; as the economic pie shrinks, so do the expected receipts. Well examine whether the huge surge in tax revenues the administration predicts will actually materialize in a minute.Second, reductions in spending tend to be far harder to achieve, far more durable, and far more predictable in generating dollars for deficit reduction, than increases in taxes, where forecasts are often wildly optimistic, and radically wrong.

Difficult to believe keep barking up this tree.