"In March, 120,000 jobs were created, while more than 330,000 people dropped out of the workforce. For self-serving reasons, the Obama administration spins this as good news. 

"According to government math, March unemployment declined by .1 percent even though more Americans were out of work. This is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doesn’t count people as officially unemployed if they are not looking for a job. So even though the 'not in labor force' figure is at a record high of nearly 88 million people, the administration can keep reporting a drop in unemployment by counting only those it wants to count. ...

"The government naturally wants to put as good a face on the ostensible recovery as possible, but the official unemployment figures are painfully out of step with reality. If three Americans are quitting the workforce for every one who finds a job, this is not a recovery. It is a national jobs crisis."

"In October 2010, on the eve of the Islamic revolution that the media fancies as 'the Arab Spring,' the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood called for jihad against the United States.   

"You might think that this all but unnoticed bombshell would be of some importance to policymakers in Washington. It was not. It is not. This week, the Obama administration quietly released $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian government, now dominated by a Brotherhood-led coalition in parliament — soon to be joined by an Ikhwan (i.e., Brotherhood) luminary as president.  

"It is not easy to find the announcement. With the legacy media having joined the Obama reelection campaign, we must turn for such news to outlets like the Kuwait News Agency. There, we learn that, having dug our nation into a $16 trillion debt hole, President Obama has nevertheless decided to borrow more money from unfriendly powers like China so he can give it to an outfit that views the United States as an enemy to be destroyed."

"Romney is right to suggest that Obama is saying things he doesn’t believe in order to get reelected. But, at least on energy, he’s not taking a new position. When you’re the incumbent president, you can say that your position is whatever you want. But the truth of the matter isn’t determined by what you say, but by what you do. And judged against what he is doing, Obama's all-of-the-above strategy isn’t a policy change, it’s just a lie."

"It appears to be unprecedented ... for a U.S. president to have attacked the Supreme Court before it handed down its decision. Some think Mr. Obama and his progressive infantry are trying to intimidate the Justices, specifically Justice Anthony Kennedy. But most legal commentary has said the president's attack is likely to anger the justices, perhaps including some of the court's liberals. Mr. Obama's notion of judicial review diminishes all the members of any court, not just its conservatives. It doesn't help the always difficult struggle for an independent judiciary in other countries if an American president is issuing Venezuela-like statements on U.S. courts."

"One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. ... 

"Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying Presidents of the United States, I prefer that they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying. 

"But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are. ... 

"It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama's lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama."

"Last week, before Supreme Court oral arguments began on Obamacare, we noted that liberals in the media had already started a campaign to delegitimize an adverse decision in advance. We hardly expected to see scores of elected Democrats, led by President Obama, join in this rhetorical charge against the high court this week. Obama, speaking to reporters on Monday, said that overturning the health care law's individual mandate would be 'an unprecedented, extraordinary step' by the justices that would be a 'good example' of 'judicial activism.'  ... 

"That he would take aim this way at our nation's fair administration of justice should be viewed as a sign of weakness, not strength. The president who says his agenda 'can't wait' for Congress now won't even wait for the Supreme Court to rule before impugning its integrity. When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution's system of checks and balances, they did it precisely to protect us from such leaders."

"A lot of politicians are worrying about the Constitution these days. Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging ObamaCare, five Supreme Court justices — a majority — asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional. …

"If the Court overturns ObamaCare, Obama may be tempted to attack the Court. He should beware. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, a few months after a landslide reelection, proposed to pack the Supreme Court with new appointees. 

"Gallup polls showed majorities opposed the move, and in the next election, proponents of FDR’s New Deal lost their congressional majorities. Lesson: Most American voters worry about the Constitution."

"You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.

"Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin ...

"They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. 'I will transmit this information to Vladimir,' Medvedev assured Obama."

"The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

"They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.

"That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.

"Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court. 

"Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s -- and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy. 

"'What is left?' Justice Antonin Scalia demanded of Verrilli, 'if the government can do this, what can it not do?' Verrilli's response to this basic and most predictable of questions was to rattle off a few legal precedents."