A summer after the administration-announced “Recovery Summer,” we still haven’t recovered. There are a lot of bad economic indicators, but some stand out more starkly than others:

Yet the president never once acknowledges the role his policies have played in this downturn. Instead, he continues to find other people to blame:

There’s even murmuring within Obama’s own party. One Democrat, though, in particular, has reason to be happy with how things are going:

Watching the president and his apologists, one gets the uneasy feeling they are out of their depth—that they just don’t comprehend the dire straits we’re in or what needs to be done. It kind of reminds me of this:

I know I’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating: we need a drastic change in leadership. That’s the only change that will bring genuine hope.

For weeks now [I could say "for years," but I'm trying to limit it to the present debate] we’ve been treated to a steady stream of invective from Democrats saying that “Tea Party wingnut extremists” are the barrier for reaching a budget deal. What exactly are those “extremist” views? Please choose among the following:

• A desire to live within our means as a nation rather than going even more trillions of dollars in debt
• A call for a balanced budget amendment—such as those that exist currently in many states—to ensure that wiser spending decisions are made
• A reluctance to raise the debt ceiling once again, in hopes that we can turn our spending habits around
• An attempt to reduce our current debt by $4-6 trillion to stave off the downgrading of the nation’s credit rating

These are radical, wild-eyed proposals? These are extremist policy stances?

They used to be called wisdom.

On the other side, calls for raising taxes will only hurt the economy. By the way, the very people the Democrats say they want to help—the needy—will be hurt the most by the reduction in jobs those raised taxes will cause. They are also the ones who will suffer the most by a downgraded credit rating, as costs will rise and interest rates on loans will shoot up.

And here’s some more basic knowledge that people need to learn: tax cuts do not cause deficits; as the Reagan years revealed, revenues increased significantly by lowering the tax rates. The only reason the deficits went up during Reagan’s presidency is that spending increased faster than the new revenues, thanks to a Democrat House of Representatives that promised to cut $3 in spending for every $1 dollar raised in revenue. Needless to say, they reneged on that promise.

How about a real example of extremism? Here’s former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharing her keen insight into the budget process:

What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it.

I’m sure glad she’s not prone to overstating anything. At least she didn’t extend her remarks to the galaxy or the universe.

Yes, there are extremists out there, but they need to be identified more accurately.

There are times when a statement by a politician is so far from reality that it takes a while to be able to come up with a response other than laughter.

For instance, in case you missed it, Nancy Pelosi, defending her four years as House Speaker made this astounding claim:

“Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

When I first heard her say this, I thought perhaps I had misunderstood, but it becomes more ludicrous each time the soundbite is played. Here are the facts:

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

She also claims that the Democrats were “all about market-oriented solutions” and that the reason the unemployment rate is so high is due to [are you ready for this?] the policies of George W. Bush. There just doesn’t seem to be any statute of limitations on this blame game. Businesses, however, know why things have been so bad:

Pelosi’s comments beg the question: does she really believe what she is saying? Option one: she does believe it, thereby showing how blind a person can become when wedded to a false ideology. What the apostle Paul said with respect to people being blind to the Gospel message can have application here as well:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case  the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:3-3]

In this case, she is blinded from seeing the truth because she already has a predetermined philosophy that keeps her in the darkness.

Option 2: she doesn’t really believe what she is saying but hopes to mislead the public and return to power in two years. 

I’m not really sure which option is the case, but if the first, she is out of touch with reality—and if the second, her character disqualifies her from public service.

There are always those who will be fooled, either because they are enmeshed in false ideas—or for other reasons:

That part of the electorate can always be counted on to remain faithful to whatever policies “progressive” leadership enacts. Others, though, are becoming more skeptical:

In fact, the number of skeptics is growing and becoming quite vocal, as witnessed by the events of the past two years and the election results:

May true enlightenment continue, and may the veil that blinds the people be pulled aside.

I remember standing in the freezing rain outside the Capitol on inaugural day 2001, watching George W. Bush replace Bill Clinton as president. It’s hard to describe the relief that swept through the crowd once he took the oath of office. Eight years of one of the sleaziest episodes in American presidential history had mercifully come to an end.

I wasn’t present on Wednesday when the Republicans once again took control of the House of Representatives, but something similar to that 2001 feeling returned. At least one step had been taken to redeem the congressional follies of the past four years.

I’m not going to speculate what was going through John Boehner’s mind in this picture as he held the gavel, but for many of us, this political cartoon captures the emotion accurately:

New Speaker Boehner, once Nancy Pelosi finally yielded the floor to him, gave a sober, humble address about taking care of the nation’s business. While Boehner is not a charismatic speaker, he spoke words of truth. Aren’t we tired yet of charismatic speakers who spout little else but platitudes? Wednesday’s transfer of authority will hopefully give us more responsible leadership in the House:

Then yesterday, the new Republican leadership made its first order of business a reading of the Constitution on the House floor. Critics called it a publicity stunt, yet when all members were sworn in, what were they pledging to do? Uphold the Constitution. Why then is the reading of the document they pledge to follow and maintain a stunt? I fear that for some of those representatives, this was the first time they’ve heard some of these provisions.

Yes, I know it won’t change anyone’s mind about what is constitutional. Progressives will mouth the pledge and proceed to undermine the authority of the Constitution. But reading it publicly served a good purpose—it was a reminder to the entire nation that lawmakers are not supposed to flout its authority. The Republicans’ new rule that each piece of legislation must also include a specific constitutional authorization serves that same purpose. Some lawmakers will have to be very creative to provide their constitutional rationales for what they want. At the very least, it opens up a much-needed debate on original intent.

For many years, I have been a voice calling for a return to the governmental limitations found in the Constitution. Please forgive me if I feel a sense of elation at this turn of events. I realize that this is only a beginning, and that the representatives’ resolve will be tested, but I rejoice still to see this day. Will even better days arrive?

Does anyone remember that an election took place about a month ago? If so, please remind the current congressional leadership. This lame-duck Congress is desiring to throw away its crutches.

The election said one thing quite demonstrably: the Democrat leadership is hereby repudiated. Yet that leadership, still clinging to its last gasps of power, is attempting to ram through a series of bills that it knows won’t stand a chance in January when the new members take their seats.

Yesterday, the House voted to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire when the new year begins. Now, that’s not the way they framed it, of course. They want us to see them as the champions of the “little guy,” who needs the current tax rates to stay where they are. But those evil rich people don’t deserve such a “break.” They had their vote; they made their political point as they once again tried to create class warfare. Yet it was all for show and isn’t going to be accepted in the Senate, where the Republican minority can stall it.

In fact, Republicans in the Senate have decided they will filibuster any bill that is not dealing with the two most crucial items: extending the tax cuts to everyone and ensuring that a budget is passed. Anything else is peripheral at the moment.

I firmly believe it is wrong, in light of the late elections and what they mean, for this very lame duck to continue to push its agenda. All other matters should be left for the new Congress to debate, a Congress that more fully represents what the American people voted for in November.

The Pelosi-Reid circus needs to come to an inglorious end immediately.

When this new Congress does meet, it can then be held accountable for carrying out the mandate it has received. The president, meanwhile, will have a new tactic he can use:

Be prepared for it. It will come to pass.

Our lame Congress—I mean “lame-duck” Congress—is giving plenty of evidence why the elections were a good thing. Let’s just consider how the Democrats are handling themselves during this session. They started off by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as their leader in the House.

Pelosi has learned nothing from the elections. She’s convinced that her party wasn’t turned out of power for its policies. This could turn into a new TV program:

If it should ever materialize, don’t expect the ratings to rival Palin’s.

Why, it may be asked, did Democrats put her back in charge? Was it her stellar leadership abilities?

Or was it more a matter of inertia? I’ve often marveled how Britain couldn’t survive without a monarch. It had one decade [the 1650s] without one, then reverted back. It’s almost as if they couldn’t imagine living without one. Is the same concept at work with the Democrats and Pelosi?

To be honest, I don’t mind that she’s still the face of the Democrat part of the House. That only helps Republicans.

Meanwhile, the House Ethics Committee finally ruled on the accusations against Charlie Rangel and found him guilty of numerous counts of unethical behavior. Of course, it only took a couple of years to get around to it. And it remains to be seen if the disciplinary action will anything more than a slap on the wrist. I’m hoping for better, but with this group, it’s hard to have hope.

Maxine Waters is next, and the latest rumor is that they have found even more damning evidence against her recently. A cleansing of the entire Congress is necessary. This is not ethnic cleansing, but it is ethics cleansing.

Well, we are getting rid of a good portion of those responsible for this fiasco. January should give rise to a Congress that is more fiscally conservative. Yet that is only the beginning. The House-cleaning must continue.

Some individuals, when they get a taste of power, have a hard time letting go. They develop the mentality that they deserve their position, regardless of how they’ve wielded that power. A case in point:

It’s also difficult to make the rest of the election losers realize their time is up. For instance, we have a congressional session ready to start shortly, with all the old congressmen and senators, many of whom won’t be there in January. Rumors are that they will try to ram through unpopular measures before they leave. Someone needs to remind them of their status:

Meanwhile, President Obama is still selling the same message, but its reception may be quite different two years after he first propounded it:

There certainly are problems that need to be addressed, but I don’t trust the current Congress to address them appropriately. I fear the remedies they will propose:

Of course, the new Congress that arrives in January has to be focused. The “marriage” between establishment Republicans and those heavily influenced by the Tea Party movement could be a little shaky. The establishment types are going to need some prodding:

It’s time to take our problems seriously and tackle them with viable solutions. We can begin by being faithful to the Constitution. The answers will flow from that faithfulness.