It should come as no surprise that the President strongly endorsed building a mosque on Ground Zero in Manhattan.  Nor should it come as a surprise that he later tried to backpedal and obfuscate his original defense of the mosque when various groups expressed outrage at his position.  Perhaps the President is merely trying to tell every side what they want to hear - perhaps worse, he simply lacks any real convictions on the matter due to the absence of a core set of values or beliefs.

James Taranto of Wall Street Journal gives a great critical summation of the back and forth retractions issued by the White House after Mr. Obama’s original endorsement of the mosque, and concludes that Mr. Obama “is a stubborn man without conviction”.  Mr. Taranto’s analysis is definitely worth the read - excerpts from his article follow:

So why did nearly everybody construe the Friday remarks as a strong endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque? Blame the professional left, which, in its characteristic neo-McCarthyite style, has sought to portray all criticism of the mosque project as, to quote Sargent, “un-American” and the critics as an undifferentiated lunatic fringe that rejects the First Amendment, at least as it applies to Islam.

Obama is a man of the left, so when he deployed the left’s rhetoric about the First Amendment, allies and adversaries alike assumed that he also intended to level this accusation at the mosque’s critics. They might well have been right about this, but if so, the president quickly made clear he does not have the courage of his convictions.

In doing so, and despite himself, he managed to make an important point. It is not a “clever little dodge” but a principled position to say that while the mosque’s developers have a right to build it near Ground Zero, doing so is not the right thing to do. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism.

Obama, however, made this point in a way that showed him to be small and weak, offering it not as a defense of the mosque’s critics but of himself against them. Imagine if on Friday he had not only pandered to his guests by defending their constitutional rights but also challenged them by saying forthrightly what he acknowledged evasively on Saturday: that building a mosque near Ground Zero may be unwise even though the law clearly allows it. That would have been presidential.

Instead we got what sounded like a strong endorsement, followed by a backpedaling denial that it was any such thing, followed in turn by a denial that the earlier denial was backpedaling. The president stands behind everything he said but denies that he said much of anything.

Barack Obama is a stubborn man without conviction.

Once again the President has shown a mindset that is alien to the common sense values of the average American.  Even worse, our accidental President was not shown the capacity to listen or learn even as his poll number plummet.

More On This Topic:  Sacrilege at Ground Zero - Washington Post

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The President’s criticism of “fat-cat bankers” has been relentless.  Since taking office, Obama has seized every opportunity to flame the public hatred for bankers by portraying them as being greedy and insensitive.

Obama Criticizes Fat-Cat Bankers-Bloomberg - Dec 14, 2009 -  “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street,” Obama said in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program.

“The people on Wall Street still don’t get it,” Obama said. “They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks”.

Recently, Obama’s “pay czar” again publicly excoriated bankers for their greed.

TARP Pay Czar Criticizes Big Bank Bonuses - LA Times - July 24, 2010 - The Obama administration’s pay czar on Friday came to the same conclusion about fat Wall Street bonuses that average Americans have already reached: There’s no logic behind them, except greed.

Still, the findings sparked outrage from some in Congress, renewed calls for reining in Wall Street compensation and raised the prospect of re-energized efforts to impose hefty taxes on such bonuses.

President Obama said the “lavish bonuses” highlighted the need for provisions in the recently enacted financial regulatory reform that address executive compensation…

Does Obama really care how much bankers get paid or is he simply seizing a political opportunity to increase his poll numbers?   As usual it’s not clear what Obama’s real values are, but flogging bankers hasn’t helped, as his poll ratings drop to all time lows (see Obama’s Approval Ratings Plunge).

Perhaps the cynicism is unwarranted - maybe bankers are indeed “greedy” and “just don’t get it” - maybe Obama truly feels that bankers are being unjustly enriched at the expense of the public.  I would like to believe Obama’s motives are pure, but if so, where is the moral outrage when it comes to public officials blatantly looting the public treasury?

Although disclosure of public officials giving themselves outrageous pay and benefits in Bell City, California has outraged the public, not a word of recrimination has come out of the White House.  The shameless looting of taxpayer monies  by public officials sworn to work for the interests of those who elected them is almost beyond comprehension, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:

For an illustration of everything wrong with the nation’s public pensions, look no further than the compensation in Bell, California.

Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo stepped down three weeks ago after news broke that he was making $800,000 a year to oversee the blue-collar town of 40,000. Now the Los Angeles Times reports that records show Mr. Rizzo’s compensation was double that amount—some $1.5 million a year. That number included the 28 weeks of vacation and sick time Mr. Rizzo was allowed annually—at a cost of $386,000. Good work, if you can get it.

Mr. Bell’s comp also spiraled up thanks to the city’s contributions to his pension and other retirement plans. Mr. Rizzo is in line to collect at least $600,000 annually in guaranteed pension payouts upon retirement, thanks to California’s generous formulas based on time served and compensation. Those payouts—which could add up to tens of millions of dollars over Mr. Rizzo’s lifetime—help explain why the Golden State is currently $6.2 billion in the hole for retiree pension and benefit payments.

These paydays are the inevitable result of the dominance of government unions in city and state politics. While most private workers have 401(k)-type plans that rise and fall in value with economic growth, unions negotiate guaranteed payouts that stay lucrative whether or not the cities can afford them.

Bankers are not elected by the public and do not directly work for the taxpayers.  Bankers may owe the public some accountability, but elected officials should certainly be held to a higher standard.  If Mr Obama is looking to improve his poll standings, how about some outrage over public officials who breach the public trust and enrich themselves at public expense?   Mr Obama should take a page out his banker’s book and propose taxing Mr. Rizzo’s ill gotten gains at 100%.

Deluged by the arrival of nonstop illegal immigrants, Arizona recently passed legislation to deal with the problem.   Arizona was forced to take action after efforts by the Federal government to address illegal immigration were perceived as ineffective and indifferent.

Arizona’s new law quickly became controversial.   The Obama administration immediately condemned Arizona and acted swiftly to block the new law, a move that left many average Americans scratching their heads.  Why would the Federal government be outraged by a State seeking to identify illegal aliens residing within their borders?

According to the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, Washington’s posture diverges widely from the views of a majority of Americans.  The Gallup poll reveals that the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against the new Arizona immigration law are opposed by Americans by a 50% to 33% margin.

Feelings are running even higher in the State of Arizona as residents consider the Obama administration’s opposition to the new law as an infringement on State’s rights.  As reported by CNS News, many view the Federal Government’s position as counterproductive and in direct opposition to common sense.

(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.

Given the Government’s strident opposition to identifying illegal aliens in Arizona, one might expect that the national effort by the Feds to capture and deport illegal aliens would be muted or nonexistent, yet the opposite appears to be the case.  Consider the increase in the number of deported illegal immigrants as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

A record number of criminal aliens have been deported so far this year, reflecting a shift in emphasis by the Obama administration, according to an independent analysis released Monday.

In the first nine months of fiscal year 2010, 137,000 illegal immigrants designated as criminal aliens were deported, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, 60% more than in a comparable period of the Bush administration’s last year and about one-third more than in a comparable period in the Obama administration’s first year.

The numbers reflect ICE’s implementation of a policy that targets illegal immigrants the government describes as criminal aliens who have been convicted of offenses since coming to the U.S. ranging from murder and sexual assault to property damage and traffic violations…

About 11 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.

A surge in deportations between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 was accomplished largely by “catching noncitizens who had not committed any crimes” other than sneaking across the border or entering the U.S. legally and overstaying their visas, the TRAC report said.

Despite the new emphasis, fewer than half of those removed, or 49%, were criminal aliens, compared with 51% who were not.

One may certainly wonder what the strategy of the U.S. government is when it comes to dealing with the issue of illegal immigrants.  While attempting to crush the State of Arizona for asserting its right to deal with illegal aliens, the Feds are simultaneously deporting record numbers of illegal aliens.  This Bizarro World strategy of “let them in so we can catch them” is nonsensical.   It is difficult to discern a clear fundamental strategy by the President who daily seems more distant from the mainstream beliefs and values of average Americans.  It is no wonder that Obama’s approval ratings are plunging.

Des Moines, Iowa is now the site of a super controversial billboard  erected by a local Iowa tea party.   The tea party apparently saw disturbing similarities between “National Socialism (Hitler), Marxist Socialism (Lenin) and Democratic Socialism” (Obama).

The tea party decided to make its point in a graphic and public manner, which immediately drew strong protests from a variety of groups.

The billboard was quickly removed but the storm of controversy is sure to continue.

The tea party only briefly exercised its right of freedom of speech after party members decided that the billboard was offensive.

Tea Party Goes Wild

A new poll released by the Washington Post-ABC News shows that support for the president has plunged to a new all time low.   A staggering 60% of voters say that they “lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy”.

The poll results should not be a surprise to anyone based on recent state and local election results where voters have shown a resounding denunciation of Obama’s policies.   The country is clearing going in the wrong direction with living standards declining across virtually every income and social group.

The Financial Times assessed Obama’s problems regarding his recent plunge in the polls:

Astonishingly, 55 per cent of citizens think Mr Obama is a “socialist” against only 39 per cent who do not share that diagnosis.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Big Brother directives flow out of Washington on a massive scale, attempting to micro manage and control every aspect of the economy and our personal lives.  Imbued with an arrogance beyond comprehension, the ruling elite believe they can solve any problem by simply legislating another 2,500 page bill.    The people are no longer being fooled by this nonsense and the recognition is slowly building that Congress could do more good by simply leaving town for an extended period.

Why Is This Man Smiling?

While the Obama administration has been spending trillions on unaffordable health care programs, global warming, financial reform and other matters mostly peripheral to most Americans, the issue of a floundering economy and sky high unemployment go unaddressed.  It’s always “jobs and the economy stupid”.  Without income growth, none of these other programs matter as reported by Bloomberg:

Seven of 10 Americans say reducing unemployment is the priority. At the same time, the public is skeptical of the Obama administration’s stimulus program and wary of more spending, with more than half saying the deficit is “dangerously out of control.”

The public mood is bleak, with 63 percent saying they believe the country is on the wrong track, the most negative reading of Obama’s presidency. After a year of economic growth, 71 percent say the economy is still in recession; another 13 percent say the economy is faltering and will dip back into recession.

Only 1 in 6 say they believe they are personally better off than they were 18 months ago, when President Barack Obama took office. They are more apt to see the economy today as deteriorating than improving.

Based on the direction the country is headed in, a logical mind would wonder why 40% of voters still apparently support Obama.  Here’s some rather dark thoughts on this matter by Wayne Allen Root, 2008 VP nominee for the Libertarian party, as reported by truthorfiction.

Barach Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of ‘83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

– Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

– Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

– Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

– Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country.