The cornerstone of Obama’s Labor Day speech before a union audience was a $50 billion transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Big Labor. Porkulus 3.0 will not create jobs for years (if at all), but it will raise gasoline prices

Aside from taking time to feel sorry for himself, Obama unveiled a proposal to spend $50 billion on roads and infrastructure, which he promised “will not only create jobs immediately, it’s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul.”

His administration immediately admitted he lied. A senior Obama official, who would speak only anonymously, said: “We’re not like trying to put out an idea today that in October 2010, this is going to create a lot of jobs. This is not what this is.”

The Washington Times added, “Senior administration officials said measures for economic progress will take effect mostly in the long run and likely will do little to lower the 9.6 percent unemployment rate anytime soon.” (Emphasis added.) Even if it is passed, “Congress might not authorize funding for the six-year plan until after November and that no more jobs will be created until 2011.”

Most of those jobs would be staffed by the people behind him on the stage: union thugs and Democratic Party donors. The AFL-CIO and SEIU together have devoted $88 million to the 2010 midterms, which is $20 million more than unions spent in 2008. They have already spent $14 million in California alone to support Democrat Jerry Brown. Obama’s payback to the unions is by no means coincidental.

However, the plan Obama is selling to cure unemployment today (“immediately”) will not be in effect fully until after his second term (or, we pray, his successor’s first).

Reading the fine print reveals something else: the price tag is not really $50 billion….

Read more.

Seeing his popularity diminishing before his eyes, Barack Obama sought comfort in the steely arms of Big Labor yesterday. The most criticism-averse president in history whined that it was “special interests” who opposed his agenda — and these people were not very nice. Looking deliberately into the camera, he tried out a down-home phrase to show solidarity with the union rabble. “They talk about me like a dog,” said the Cornpone Kenyan. “That’s not in my prepared remarks,” he lied, “but it’s true.”

By recent standards, he’s lived a charmed life. His left-wing friends in the anti-(American) war movement are not in the streets comparing him to Hitler or calling for his assassination. Glenn Beck’s crowds gather to pray.

But there may be a reason he receives less than universal adulation, even occasionally scathing remarks about his job as president: he deserves them, and a Hell of a lot more.

This president has elevated members of the radical Left to the heights of power. He selected “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones, the 9/11 Truther and Marxist, who also believed Hurricane Katrina might be an inside job. His current Science Czar, John Holdren, has written in support of compulsory abortion for American woman and absorbing our national soveriegnty into “A Comprehensive Planetary Regime.” The man entrusted with enforcing justice, Eric Holder, once sought Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, believes America is “a nation of cowards,” and is busy dragging tough sheriffs to court while letting Black Panthers get off scot free.

Obama has placed the most precious document in our nation, the Constitution, at the whim of judicial activists. His followed up his first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who believes convicted felons should have the right to vote, with Elena Kagan, an outspoken advocate of supplanting the U.S. Constitution with foreign law. Kagan’s judicial heroes include Cass Sunstein, Thurgood Marshall, and insane Israeli Aharon Barak.

No one on the Left, however extreme, is unwelcome in the Obama White House. He has accepted at least $50,000 from Democratic bundler and Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, who has since enjoyed close personal access to Obama and other White House personnel.

His closest advisers are, if it is possible, further Left than he is….

Read more.

Fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin is asking that his lawsuit challenging his abrupt and apparently illegal dismissal by the Obama administration be reinstated – and he wants a new judge assigned to the case.

A Washington Times editorial published Sept. 1 suggests that District Judge Richard W. Roberts has not presided over Walpin’s case with professional impartiality.

The editorial details extensive personal and professional ties between Roberts and Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, the boss of the Department of Justice lawyers defending the administration against Walpin’s suit.

According to the Times, Roberts and Holder have been close personal friends for decades.

Roberts worked for Holder in the Department of Justice during the Clinton administration, and Holder helped Roberts ascend to the federal bench in 1998.

White House Special Counsel Norman L. Eisen removed Walpin from his office as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Services in June 2009.

The dismissal came several months after Walpin submitted two reports that proved highly embarrassing to the Obama administration.

The more prominent report found that Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, a Obama supporter, had misused more than $800,000 in federal grant money while running a Sacramento charter school, St. HOPE Academy. The government subsequently suspended Johnson’s eligibility for receiving federal funding.

Obama’s attorney fired Walpin without providing Congress the written explanation and the 30 days notice required by the Inspector General Reform Act – a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama to protect inspectors general from political interference and retaliation. Walpin sued to be reinstated.

Read more.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department insists “No American taxpayer funds will be used to support [a]  Kabul Bank.” Let’s hope this is one promise from these people we can count on because there will be serious consequences if Obama reverses himself.

The banks in Afghanistan must be controlled by the United States or our allies so they do not fall under the influence of the Taliban who will use sharia law to run them instead of accepted banking principles. Under sharia the terrorist Taliban will pull out 2.5% of every dollar handled by Afghanistan’s banks.

What Shari’a banks would look like

Shari’a banks run on the principles of Islam in every single aspect of their activities.

These banks would; charge no interest; avoid any speculative transactions; introduce and collect the Islamic tax called zakat and; discourage any production of tangible assets offensive to Islamic values.

In its purest state Islam is a huge redistribution scheme under which the zakat serves as a way to extract money from faithful Muslims to create the image of being a charitable religion. There is no choice for adherent Muslims when it comes to paying their zakat. Its monitory nature means a zakat can not justifiably be called an act of charity.  Since zakat is 2.5% of a Muslim’s annual wages, lots of dollars would pass through Islamist bankers’ hands which would turn them into paymasters of terror.

The men who would be Afghanistan’s banking advisory board….

Read more.

I got the email in late afternoon. “In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity,” the email began, “over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the president of the United States should be ignored and suppressed by the major media.”

This couldn’t be correct. No doubt another internet hoax by the vast right-wing conspiracy. I wasn’t taking the bait.

Rather than hit delete, however, I took a moment to open the hyperlink. Lo and behold, the letter (click here), signed by over 70 self-described “Christian pastors and leaders,” proclaimed:

[W]e are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama’s faith…. [T]he personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate…. Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the president’s Christian faith.

Likewise remarkable was the letter’s appeal to political neutrality. “This is not a political issue,” the pastors insisted.

The letter was posted at the website of Eleison Group, whose president, Burns Strider, offers faith-based political advice to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Signers include Jim Wallis, who is synonymous with faith and politics, widely known for his group Sojourners and bestseller God’s Politics.

Most striking is the letter’s stunning demand that the media offer no airtime to anyone questioning the president’s faith, even as this president has arguably the most unconventional faith profile of any president in history, understandably creating confusion among the public.

No airtime? Obviously, such a demand presents a host of thorny considerations, beginning, of course, with the First Amendment.

Read more.

H/T: The Blaze