Archive for May, 2011

Barack Obama And Israel: The Coming Antichrist’s Useful Idiot

May 19, 2011

God damn America just entered a radical and aggressive new phase.  But that should come as absolutely no surprise to those who a) understand the Bible and b) understand that Barack Obama is a truly evil man.

It’s almost as if Obama killed Osama and then decided to balance the scales by killing the entire nation of Israel.

Is Barack Obama the Antichrist?  No.  He is merely the coming Antichrist’s useful idiot.

Ultimately, this coming global dictator known as the Antichrist, the beast (Revelation 13), the man of lawlessness and the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and the little horn (Daniel 7:20-24), will come riding in on his white horse (Revelation 6:1) to “save the world” from impending catastrophe.  There will be total economic implosion, food shortages and famine, and wars – especially in the sense of “race” (ethnos) rising against race (Luke 21:10).

And, of course, the biggest and most dangerous “race against race” of all is the incredibly better war between the Arabs and the Jews.

Antichrist will seem to have an answer for all these problems and more.  This coming dictator will appear to be so effective that the world will literally worship him.

Obama is not the man who will have all the answers; he is merely the fool who leads the world into this state of total chaos and collapse.  He is merely the fool who will usher in the beast and welcome him.

The coming seven-year tribulation – which will be the most terrifying and most dangerous period in the history of the entire human race – will be initiated with the antichrist’s signing of a seven-year treaty “guaranteeing” the peace of Israel (see Daniel 9:27).  And Obama has brought us to the point where we are very nearly at that point.

Here is the story:

Obama Orders Israel to ‘End the Occupation’
by Maayana Miskin

United States President Barack Obama issued a stinging condemnation of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria on Wednesday in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” Obama announced.

Using unusually harsh terminology, Obama called to “end the occupation that began in 1967″ – referring to Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria.

Obama also stated that the U.S. must put more pressure on Israel to accept Arab demands. “The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians,” he said.

The U.S. president had demands for Israel’s opponents as well, and called on UN member states to avoid “vitriolic” attacks on Israel and recognize Israel’s legitimacy. In addition, he called on the Palestinian Authority to “end incitement against Israel.”

In his speech, Obama reported that progress had been made in a meeting the day before with  Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama has pressured Israel to completely freeze building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, a plan Netanyahu has rejected. Israeli leaders have stated that many Judea and Samaria communities are within the “national consensus” regarding towns that are expected to remain in Israeli hands permanently, and that building should continue in those areas. The Obama administration’s most recent statements on the subject made clear, however, that a freeze on settlements could not be a precondition for peace talks between Israel and the PA.

Regarding Iran, Obama expressed support for both diplomacy and consequences. Iran and North Korea should be offered “greater prosperity and a more secure peace” if they agree to abide by international guidelines, but “must be held accountable” if they insist on pursuing nuclear weapons, he said.

Bolton: Israel on the Chopping Block
Former United States ambassador to the UN John Bolton said the president’s message had strong significance, particularly given the venue. Obama has put Israel “on the chopping block,” Bolton warned.

‘World Must Work Together’
Obama called for the nations of the world to work together, saying, “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility.”

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” he added pointedly.

Obama said UN member states had fallen short in addressing the world’s problems. Among the issues he called to address were genocide, “protracted conflicts,” nuclear proliferation, and global warming.
(IsraelNationalNews.com

With “friends” like Obama, Israel really doesn’t need any enemies.  But of course it has them anyway – numbering in the scores.  Obama has proven that he is the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish president in American history.  We can now readily see why the United States of America is not mentioned in Bible prophecy.  Our fate is very nearly sealed.  The writing on the wall is nearly complete: America has been weighed on the scales and found wanting.  Our way is the way of Obama, the way of the Dodo bird and the way of hell.

Obama has every intention of exposing the underbelly of Israel, leaving her with completely indefensible borders, including an 8 mile-wide country that cannot possibly resist the next invasion.  Obama is literally seeking to give the Arabs the high ground so that they can murder every single Jew in Israel with near impunity.  Obama’s new borders would come at the price of Israel’s existence.  Israel will resist this, of course, but with the United States – formerly Israel’s greatest political ally – now becoming her chief political enemy, she will become increasingly isolated and desperate.

At the very moment that the Syrians have shown how truly evil they are, we have a president who actually wants to give them the strategically vital Golan Heights.  That is beyond the limit of lunacy.  It doesn’t matter how desperately wrong the Obama administration is or how many times that proof is documented for all to see.  We continue to blithely march like the proverbial lemmings to our fools’ end.

And not only is Obama demanding this of Israel, but it is demanding that the Arabs give no concessions whatsoever.  Barack Obama – whether stupidly or wickedly – has dedicated himself to the destruction of the state of Israel.  Obama has literally torn-up Bush-era agreements that were overwhelmingly ratified by both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate.  Israel now knows for certain that the United States is no trustworthy partner, and that America’s word means exactly nothing.

At one particularly asinine moment in Obama’s speech we had this:

“How can one negotiate with a party that has shown unwillingness to recognize your right to exist?” Obama asked.

And – bizarrely - Obama didn’t even bother to try to answer it as he essentially demand that Israel trust said “party” anyway.  It was as though merely raising the intractable issue was good enough.

When the Antichrist comes offering an apparent way out of this fools’ dilemma Obama has imposed, Israel will take it.  And the death sentence of the present world will be inaugurated.

Liberals in America and around the world have been dreaming of a one-world Utopia for decades.  The Bible told us 2,000 years ago that such a global dictatorship that the left is seeking would come to pass – in the last days.  What the left passionately believes will be the salvation of the human race will actually be the guarantee of the destruction of the human race (Revelation 13:1-18).  One of the greatest ironies in human history is that the left – which openly mocks the Bible – have become the primary instruments of its fulfillment.  To their certain doom.

You Democrats will one day be forced to account for the horror that you will have unleashed in voting for and supporting Barack Hussein Obama.

Take a look at a map of the Middle East:

Try to find Israel on that map.  It is so small it is hard to see.  And then look around at the Arab/Muslim states that surround her.

With all this land, it isn’t enough.  The Arabs want it all.  They want Israel destroyed.  They want her driven into the sea and annihilated.  They want to finish what Hitler started.

I can’t make it any more plain than this.  It is past time for you to choose your side.  If you side with Barack Obama and the Muslims who yearn – and rabidly froth at the mouth – for holocaust, you will pay for your wickedness with eternity in hell.  These policies are the result of a depraved moral stupidity that will find no place in God’s heaven.

At the same time, if you seek to stand with Israel, then STAND with them.  Call your congressman.  Write your congressman.  Attend meetings and publicly demand that Barack Obama be forced to abandon his policies that will result in the certain death of America as God truly does damn a nation that has become great by standing with Israel more than any other nation in history.

The Bible says that all these things will inevitably come to pass.  But woe be to you if you let the consequences fall upon your head and the heads of your children.

The beast is coming; his fool is already here to prepare his path to domination for him.  Will he take you to hell with him?

Nancy Pelosi’s District ‘Somehow’ Ends Up With 20% Of ObamaCare Waivers

May 19, 2011

Remember how Nancy Pelosi famously crowed, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy“?

Whatever it is, it turns out that it smells like bull feces even in  überliberal San Francisco.  Why is that???

 20% of New ObamaCare Waivers Go To Nancy Pelosi’s District – Will Media Notice?
By Noel Sheppard | May 17, 2011

As NewsBusters previously noted, there were 204 ObamaCare waivers issued in April, and almost 20 percent of them went to establishments in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) San Francisco district.

The Daily Caller’s Matthew Boyle reported Tuesday:

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Boyle noted a number of the establishments getting these waivers are very high-priced eateries in Pelosi’s district, many of which as a Bay Area resident I can attest to being some of the finest in the nation.

As Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey noted Tuesday:

[O]ne might think that a restaurant that charges $59 for a porterhouse steak as Boboquivari’s does could afford to fit its health care plan to Pelosi’s own specifications. The same goes for Café Mason, with its $60 entrees, and Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine calls “the best day spa in San Francisco.” If these kinds of high-tone joints can’t afford ObamaCare, then how can anyone else?

The odds of one Representative getting 20% of a batch of waivers from the Obama administration as a coincidence seems rather high. Once again, we have to wonder exactly how waiver applications are judged and approved. With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.

Indeed.

Just think if current Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) had procured these waivers for his district in Ohio. Can you imagine the media uproar?

Let’s see whether Pelosi’s shenanigans get much attention from her sycophants in the press.

Stay tuned.

While you’re staying tuned, consider the fact that over HALF of all ObamaCare waivers are being granted to UNIONS:

In what is fast becoming a weekly event, the Obama administration granted 200 more companies aivers from the Democrats’ sweeping health care law in the Friday night news dump. That brings the number of companies receiving waivers to 1,372. (You can get a full list of the companies exempted here.)

Not surprisingly, it helps to be a Democratic ally when seeking a waiver. The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions:

The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements.  Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements.  The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.

Unions already received a generous concession in the health care bill. Their generous “cadilac” insurance plans were exempted from being taxed until 2018, adding about $120 billion to the bill’s cost over ten years. For more on how the administration has helped unions, see my story in THE WEEKLY STANDARD from a few weeks ago.

The total fiasco fondly known as “ObamaCare” is going to be a total disaster for America.  And even the liberals who actually have to make payrolls understand that.

Every Democrat who even APPLIES for a waiver ought to go to prison.  You voted for this load of sh*t, dammit YOU EAT IT.

Instead, Obama is very clearly granting waivers from his vile healthcare destroying law to his political supporters, such that the people who voted for Obama’s socialist takeover of America will be exempted from it, while those who decried it are going to get stuck with it.

It’s kind of like socialists who vote themselves other people’s money; only now they’re also voting for other people’s death panels, too.

We Need More Socialists Running The World (How About NOT?)

May 19, 2011

It’s kind of interesting to see what’s going on.  We’ve got an avowed socialist international banker who has been incredibly generous with other people’s money being accused of trying to redistribute a poor immigrant woman’s body to satisfy his lusts.

A comment on this situation expresses the essence of how “fair” the proponents of “economic fairness” really are:

“The IMF booted Paul Wolfowitz (an American conservati­ve) over a consensual affair with a staffer, yet have remained silent while Strauss-Ka­hn (a European socialist) sits accused of r+ape.

As it has been reported, the IMF is weighing whether or not Dominique Strauss-Kahn is indicted as to whether or not to relieve him of his position.  For the record, there were no criminal charges filed against Paul Wolfowitz.  There was no indictment; they just canned him at the very first possible opportunity.  And while Strauss-Kahn may well end resign to avoid perpetuating the circus atmosphere more than absolutely necessary (i.e., it stands to reason that a former head of the IMF would probably generate less attention than the current head of the IMF), let it stand for the record that even following a very clearcut rape allegation where even Strauss-Kahn is acknowledging that sex occurred, he has not been fired.

Not very, it turns out.  If you’re a conservative, “fairness” means your head on a pike for what is clearly the tiniest infraction versus the socialist.  I guess that’s what they mean by “social justice”; it means “justice” that always somehow favors socialists.

Here’s the story in a nutshell:

NEW YORK — The maid came from one of the world’s poorest countries to the U.S., working to support the teen daughter she raised alone. The penthouse suite at the Sofitel Hotel was just another room. She says she had no idea the man was a famous French politician. She says he tried to rape her. In addition, the New York Post reports that the alleged sex-assault victim lives in a Bronx apartment rented exclusively for adults with HIV or AIDS. The man, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, remained jailed under a suicide watch Wednesday as a lawyer for the woman sought to rebut whispered allegations that her charges were a conspiracy and a setup.

You’d think the left wing socialists who always claim to be on the side of the poor and the oppressed would be on the side of this poor immigrant housekeeper who may well be suffering from AIDS (the sacred cow of left wing diseases).  But that would mean that left wing socialists wouldn’t be completely liars and hypocrites.  And that simply isn’t true.

With that said, only the biting irony of Ann Coulter can adequately describe this situation:

To Liberals, Every Woman Looks Like a Hotel Maid
by  Ann Coulter
05/18/2011

I suppose we’ll know the truth when the DNA testing comes back, but close observers of privileged liberal men are not shocked by the accusations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the socialist head of the International Monetary Fund. (And you thought you were getting screwed by your banker!)

Only in Hollywood movies are handsome lacrosse players from nice families seen as likely rapists. In real life, they look more like the 5-foot-2-inch Roman Polanski or pudgy, unathletic Bill Clinton — or the homunculus 5-foot-2-inch Strauss-Kahn.

But, it is argued, how could Strauss-Kahn possibly think he could get away with the violent rape of a chambermaid in a $3,000-a-night hotel room, booked in his name?

First of all, Strauss-Kahn has evidently gotten away with treating the fairer sex as his playthings for some time. No wonder his nickname among the French is “le grand seducteur,” which I believe roughly translates to “the short, tubby serial rapist.”

The New York Times reports that as far back as 2007, Brussels journalist Jean Quatremer remarked on Strauss-Kahn’s troubled behavior — “close to harassment” — toward women, saying the press knew all about it, but never mentioned it because “we are in France.”

When Strauss-Kahn was appointed to the I.M.F., Quatremer sardonically warned that the international institution was not the same as France, but instead had “Anglo-Saxon morals.”

Second, it’s not unheard of that a wealthy liberal would assume the law does not apply to him. Actually, let me restate that: Wealthy liberals always assume that laws don’t apply to them. After all the waivers the Obama administration has been dishing out like candy, are there any liberals left to whom Obamacare will apply?

We might also ask how a governor of New York could think he could get away with hiring prostitutes to service him in similarly pricey hotels, bringing them across state lines, and using his friend’s names to book the girls, year after year.

But Eliot Spitzer thought he could get away with that. Fortunately he has been brought to justice and sentenced to hosting a lame show on CNN.

Still, rape is a more serious crime than being a frenzied masturbator paying for sex. For that, I give you Andrew Luster, multimillionaire Max Factor heir, whose mother gives to every liberal cause under the sun from Barbara Boxer and Loretta Sanchez to Moveon.org, Emily’s List and pro-gay marriage groups. (If only her son had been gay!)

Her son not only drugged and raped a string of women, but made videotapes of his crimes.

On the tapes, Luster can be seen sodomizing unconscious women with lighted marijuana cigarettes, candles and plastic swords, and then talking into the camera about the unconscious women lying on his bed. The tapes were carefully labeled with titles like “Shauna GHBing,” referring to gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as a date-rape drug.

Luster was cataloging video evidence of his own criminal acts — and yet he thought he could get away with it.

He almost did, too, fleeing the country during his 2003 trial. He was caught and is now serving 124 years in prison, having been convicted, in absentia, of 86 crimes, including 20 counts of drug-induced rape, 17 counts of raping an unconscious victim, and multiple counts of sodomy and oral copulation by use of drugs.

Also out of Southern California we have Roman Polanski, the legendary director of two good movies and about a hundred unbelievably horrible ones, who drugged and anally raped an underage girl, according to the police report.

Not only did Polanski think he could get away with it, he did get away with it by fleeing the country (to France) when he discovered, to his shock and dismay, that in America, a person can actually be sentenced to prison for drugging and raping a 13-year-old. That was in 1977. He has never been brought to justice.

Liberals supported Polanski’s evasion of punishment for child rape, with the Hollywood left denouncing his arrest in Switzerland a couple of years ago, howling that he had suffered enough! Wasn’t he prevented from coming to the U.S. to pick up his Oscar in 2003?

You know who’s suffered enough? Anybody who sat all the way through “The Pianist.”

Liberal male misogyny goes back even farther than Polanski’s three-decades-old child rape.

As Phyllis Schlafly points out in her book “Feminist Fantasies” (with a stirring foreword by Ann Coulter), for centuries, famous left-wing men have treated “their wives and mistresses like unpaid servants.”

Their credo might well have been, “From each, according to my needs …”

Schlafly bases her review of liberal woman-haters on the book “Intellectuals” by historian Paul Johnson. Among the left-wing heroes highlighted by Schlafly from Johnson’s book are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Karl Marx.

Johnson writes that the pint-sized — 5 foot 2 1/2 inch — communist-sympathizing Sartre “was notorious for never taking a bath and being disgustingly dirty.” He said admiringly of the Nazis, “We have never been as free as we were under the German occupation.”

The flyweight Sartre famously turned Simone de Beauvoir into his “mistress, surrogate wife, cook and manager, female bodyguard and nurse.” (Sadly, she never learned how to give someone a sponge bath.) All the while, the smelly midget committed a stream of infidelities, viewing women “as scalps to add to his centaur’s belt.”

In “the annals of literature,” Johnson writes, “there are few worse cases of a man exploiting a woman.”

As he got older, Sartre’s sexual conquests got younger, including teenaged girls.

Like Spitzer, Luster and Polanski, liberal men seem driven by their massive insecurities (often based on physical defects, such as their diminutive size or soap allergies) to choose unconscious, illiterate, servant-class and teenage females as their sex partners. But let’s not drag pocket-sized Woody Allen’s name into this, as my column appears in many family newspapers.

Karl Marx kept a female slave from the time she was 8 years old, eventually using her not only as a servant but as his mistress, never acknowledging his child with her or paying her at all. She waited on him hand and foot while he explained to the world that profit is the stolen surplus value of the laborer. Like so many liberal icons, Marx seldom bathed and left his wife and children in poverty.

As Schlafly says, no wonder liberal women think men are pigs: Their men are pigs.

Maybe Strauss-Kahn is innocent, but students of liberal comportment base their suspicions of his guilt not on fairy tales from Lifetime: TV for Women, but on 200 years of disgusting sexual behavior by liberal men.

I was the one who boldfaced the two paragraphs above.  They were simply too delicious in their total accuracy of depicting the fact that “liberal men are pigs” not to.

I can understand why the left wing would decry the treatment of their fellow socialist hero Dominique Strauss-Kahn; the man truly epitomizes them.

Liberalism At Work: Get Ready For $50 Light Bulbs (And No, I’m NOT Kidding)

May 18, 2011

Remember those nifty little  incandescent light bulbs?  They actually worked.  Democrats HATE things that actually work.  So they banned them.

Their claim was that within a few years “green technology” would work its magic and we’d have better energy-saving alternatives in no time.

Well, the ban Democrats imposed will soon go into effect.  And now you can choose between a CFL light bulb laden with incredibly poisonous mercury, or an LED bulb that a) doesn’t actually produce light (which really should kind of be the whole purpose of a light bulb, shouldn’t it?) and b) are shockingly expensive.

I think about the idiocy of making an “environmentally-friendly” “green light bulb” out of mercury – one of the most deadly environmental poisons in the world - and I have to laugh.  But as amazingly stupid as that is, it is EXACTLY what liberals do as a matter of routine.  Think of the additive MTBE  goverment forced oil companies to add to gasoline to clean the air; it had one tiny unforeseen effect of poisoning the ground water.  Who but a liberal could possibly be that stupid?  Then there’s the whole ethanol thing, where we are literally burning food as fuel even as we face food shortages and people are starving.  Again, liberals love to depict themselves as the ones who “care.”  But they don’t actually give one freaking damn about the people they falsely claim to care about.  There was the government-imposed ban on DDT due to what we now know to have been totally bogus pseudo-leftwing-”science,” which has caused more than 30 million people to die who didn’t have to.  Then of course there is the whole global warming hoax where leftwing ideologues were paid huge grant money awards to hype a nonexistent disaster.  And the leftist bureaucrats who paid them that grant money are hoping to get trillions and trillions of dollars in forced economic redistribution as their reward.  And it really doesn’t matter that Mother Earth keeps giving global warming alarmists the very, very, VERY cold shoulder.

Putting liberals in charge of the environment is as stupid as, well, putting liberals in charge of anything.

Here’s what you win for having voted for Democrats in 2006 and allowing them to take control of both the House and the Senate (in addition to the financial implosion that resulted from their policies):

100-Watt LED Bulbs Set To Enter Market
Posted on: Tuesday, 17 May 2011, 09:53 CDT

With 100 watt light bulbs soon to be extinct, manufacturers are set to release an equivalent wattage of LED bulb to replace them, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals starting in 2012. The basic design of the incandescent bulb has not changed much in the last century and wastes most of its energy as heat, especially the higher-wattage variety.

The LED bulbs will cost about $50 each and will likely go on sale next year, after the government ban takes effect.

Creating good alternatives to 100-watt bulbs has proven challenging to the lighting industry. The new bulbs have to fit into fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are an obvious replacement, but have flaws. Containing a small amount of toxic mercury vapor which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away, they are technically a health hazard and very few people dispose of them properly. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Hmmm.  Pay $50 for a light bulb or sit in the dark while you freeze thanks to Democrat’s equally stupid energy policies???

Or there’s a third option: another Republican tidal wave that will allow conservatives to overturn this brain-dead ban.

I’ve been forced to buy some of these “green” bulbs.  They were advertised to last so many tens of times longer.  That turned out to be just as big of a load of crap as just about every other Democrat promise I’ve heard.

Democrats Actually CONTINUE To Defend Cop Killer-Celebrator ‘Common’ Invite To White House

May 17, 2011

This is absolutely bizarre to me.

Barack and Michelle Obama had a poetry night at the White House.  Among the invited honorees was a rapper named “Common” who has actually celebrated two different CONVICTED cop murderers.

Again, not just ONE cop murderer, but TWO:

  • Assata Shakur, also known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster.  She escaped prison and fled to the communist nation Cuba, where “Common” actually went to visit her prior to his “A Song for Assata.”   
  • Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981  murder of Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Two murdered police officers.  Two convicted cop killers.  And the man who celebrated those cop killers was personally invited by the Obamas for a reading of his “poetry” in the White House.

The garbage excuses I have heard from Democrats are absolutely incredible.  As genuinely depraved as I believe Democrats are, they never cease to surprise me with their moral depravity.

The latest defense was offered by Jon Stewart – and of course immediately picked up as a talking point by the left.  I blocked someone as a lying vermin, and he posted back with – of course – Jon Stewart’s talking point.  Said talking point is that if you exclude “Common” for celebrating cop killers, you must also discard any invite of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Bono.

What is interesting about this assortment of singers is that the above list consists of – in order from above - 1) a left wing radical; 2) a hard-core Democrat; and 3) a liberal.

Let’s take Bono – who apparently wrote a song called “Native Son” about an American Indian named Peltier who killed two FBI agents – first:

Bono fans fill Obama coffers
The presidential hopeful has found just what he’s looking for in U2 devotees as they swell his campaign reserves
Times, August 30, 2008
By: Colin Coyle

One is charismatic, plays to packed stadiums and wants to change the world. The other is Bono. Now a group of U2 fans, struck by the parallels between Barack Obama and the Irish rock star, have become one of the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee’s most enthusiastic band of supporters.

U2 fans for Obama, a collection of 103 U2 devotees, has raised almost $18,000 (EU12,200) for the presidential hopeful’s campaign and organised more than 600 events to date.

The group, whose website and blog are linked to the presidential candidate’s official homepage, believe that “since Bono can’t run for U.S. president, Obama is the next best thing”. Their blog declares that members “see in Obama a progressive Christian who embodies the ideas and sentiments…so compelling in U2′s music.”

The politician is already an avowed fan of the band, recently telling Rolling Stone magazine that U2 is on his iPod playlist. Bono attended the Democratic convention in Denver last week where he heard two U2 tracks, “City of Blinding Lights” and “Beautiful Day,” bookend Obama’s acceptance speech early on Friday. “Beautiful Day” was also the musical backdrop a night earlier when Obama introduced Senator Joe Biden, his nominee for vice-president, to the Denver crowd.

Oh, yeah, that one sure puts us conservative Republicans to shame.  He’s clearly one of our guys, right?  I mean, we’re responsible for this guy, right?

Oh, that’s right: WRONG!!!

I’m not going to bother to see if Bono was ever invited to attend anything during the Bush presidency, but if he was, I’ll bet you it was because of his humanitarian efforts, rather than because of his songs.

Then there’s Bruce Springsteen.  I don’t know what cop killer this turd eulogized, and I really don’t care.  But here’s the skinny on him:

‘The Boss’ would hire Obama for the top job
CAMPAIGN ’08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorses the Illinois Democrat. Clinton wins over salsa artist Willie Colon.
April 17, 2008|Johanna Neuman and Noam N. Levey | Times Staff Writers

Bruce Springsteen, the poetic rocker whose lyrics have chronicled the hardships of working-class Americans in struggling factory towns, on Wednesday endorsed Barack Obama for president.

The support that the music star known as “the Boss” threw behind the Illinois senator was a highlight of a relatively quiet day on the campaign trail, as Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

Okay, that’s two scratched off the list of three.

How about Bob Dylan?

Well, according to Democrat Underground:

“Joan Baez spoke of Dylan’s liberal political bend in “No Direction Home.” He was not a conservative.”

Then there’s such lines as this one from Dylan:

As Bob Dylan sang, “I’m liberal but to a degree. I want everybody to be free. But if you think I’m going to let Barry Goldwater move in next door to me and marry my daughter you must think I’m crazy . . .”

And Goldwater, of course, was the Republican nominee who was destroyed by the famous/infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad (you know, the ad by Vietnam warmonger Lyndon Johnson that implied Goldwater was a warmonger).

So Dylan was really just a garden variety liberal: he was the kind of hypocrite who was liberal, and therefore tolerant of everybody and everything but people he disagreed with like conservatives.  Then the intolerant hater burst out of his chest like that creature from Alien.

So I can draw two conclusions from this: 1) if you sing songs celebrating cop murders, YOU ARE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.  And 2) Democrats are so insane that they actually justify Obama inviting a rapper who celebrates two cop murderers by citing three other liberals who also seem to have celebrated cop killers.

Only a Democrat is morally sick and psychologically irrational enough to see the reason in this defense.

Allow me to also point out that this black president who made sure we all understood that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” (conclusion determined after stating he didn’t know any of the actual facts) invited a black man who eulogized two Black Panthers who both murdered WHITE police officers.

Also allow me to point out that there is a direct link between Barack Obama and “Common”: both were members of Jeremiah Wright’s demonic racist and un-American church.

Here is Trooper Werner Foerster, who was MURDERED by Assata Shakur:

And here is Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner, who was murdered by Mumia Abu-Jamar.

Take a good look at these two white men who were murdered by Black Panthers as they tried to do their duties maintaining the thin blue line between civilization and total anarchy and mayhem.  And tell me how you would feel about a president inviting a singer who wrote songs celebrating the murders of two BLACK police officers by two convicted white Ku Klux Klansmen who were nobly fighting for “white justice,” or “white power,” or “the cause,” or however the hell you want to phrase it to make it like “Common’s” eulogies.  Because THAT is EXACTLY what we have in the case of two Black Panthers murdering two white police officers.

Hey, how about if your next president invites a singer who soulfully and spiritually eulogizes James Earl Ray – the “so-called” but actually innocent man convicted of the murder of Martin Luther King???  Here’s an article from – you guessed it, Democratic Underground – saying James Earl Ray is innocent.  Hey, why not celebrate him as some kind of hero?!?!?!

If you are a Democrat, and you are not personally ashamed of your Disgrace-in-Chief, you are simply a cockroach masquerading as a human being.

Misery Index HIGHEST EVER, Hiring Only 70% Of 2006 Levels, And Boy Do We Ever Need A New President

May 16, 2011

Economics statistics are well on their way to becoming a Department in the 1984-style “Ministry of Truth.”

We start with misery, and the real apples-to-apples misery index that we can compare to the misrule of Jimmy Carter.  From Economic Policy Journal:

John Williams, over at Shadow Stats, compiles economic data for inflation and unemployment the way it used to be calculated pre-1990. Based on that data, the CPI inflation rate is over 10%, and the unemployment rate is over 15% (see charts). The Misery Index is the sum of the current inflation rate and the unemployment rate.  If it were to be calculated using the older methods, the Index would now be over 25, a record high. It surpasses the old index high of 21.98, which occurred in June 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. Most believe the height of the Index along with the Iranian hostage crisis is what caused Carter to lose his re-election bid.

 

 

Using current calculation methods, April unemployment came in at 9.0% and the annualized April CPI number came in at 4.8%, for a Misery Index reading of 13.8.

The last time the Index came in with a higher reading with this index reading was in March 1983, with a reading of 13.90.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was president in 1983.  Reagan had a monster that Jimmy Carter largely created called out-of-control inflation.

As I previously explained:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%.  And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution.  And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

Jimmy Carter didn’t have an answer for the economy, so he just made it worse and worse and WORSE.  Reagan had an answer.  He not only made it better; he established a trajectory of economic success.

And of course, we’re heading right back to that time of shocking inflation.  The cost of EVERYTHING is going up.  And there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Barack Obama has an answer that is working.  Which is only going to make the pain last longer and the solution more difficult.  Presuming there is another Reagan waiting in the wings for that time when the American people overwhelmingly abandon Democrats and revile them for the failures that they are and basically always have been.

So what does the mainstream media do with that?

They create the propaganda that somehow Obama is a new Reagan, despite the fact that Obama reviles everything Reagan stood for, just as Reagan would have reviled everything Obama stands for.

Then there’s the enemployment beast.  How’s THAT hope and change working out for you?

Here’s some new news about hopey changey from the Wall Street Journal:

 MAY 16, 2011
Why the Job Market Feels So Dismal
The number of hires is the same today as it was when we were shedding jobs at record rates.
By EDWARD P. LAZEAR

Why don’t American workers feel that the labor market is on the mend? After all, the May 6 jobs report could suggest that the labor market is improving. Nonfarm employment rose by 244,000 and employment growth over the last three months is averaging over 200,000 per month. With unemployment at 9%, employment is still down many millions from where it should be, but up from its recession lows.

The fact is the jobs numbers that create so much anticipation from the business press and so many pundit pronouncements do not give a clear picture of the labor market’s health.  A better understanding requires an examination of hires and separations, or what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data. Here are some surprising facts:

First, the increase in job growth that occurred over the past two years results from a decline in the number of layoffs, not from increased hiring. In February 2009, a month during which the labor market lost more than 700,000 jobs, employers hired four million workers. In March 2011, employers hired four million workers. The number of hires is the same today as it was when we were shedding jobs at record rates.

We added jobs because hires exceeded separations, not because hiring increased. There were 4.7 million separations in February 2009. In March 2011 that number had fallen to 3.8 million. The fall in separations reflects a decline in layoffs, which went from 2.5 million per month in February 2009 to 1.6 million per month in March 2011. One small piece of good news is that the just-released April data showed hires up about 2% over last year’s average and 12% above the low reached in January 2010.

The decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn’t mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn’t the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, American firms still hire a huge number of workers. That’s because most of the action in the labor market reflects “churn,” the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the U.S. labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we’re talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

The third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, American firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

The combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

One final fact is worth noting. Healthy labor markets are characterized not only by high levels of hiring, but also by high levels of separations. Although it is true that the importance of quits relative to layoffs rises during good times, even the number of layoffs was greater in the strong labor market of 2006-07 than it is now. No one would suggest that layoffs are good for workers, but what is good is a fluid labor market, where workers and firms constantly seek to produce better products and to find more efficient ways to produce them. High labor market churn is a characteristic of a strong economy. It generally means that workers are moving to better jobs in growing sectors that pay higher wages and away from declining sectors that pay lower wages.

Allowing maximum flexibility encourages fluidity and means that employers are willing to hire workers who lose their jobs elsewhere. Many European countries have restricted mobility by imposing severance pay penalties on employers that lay workers off. More than reducing layoffs, these rigidities make employers reluctant to hire because of the penalties that they will later incur if a layoff is necessary. Such restrictions are in large part responsible for the chronically high rates of unemployment that have been prevalent in many European countries.

The prescription for the American labor market is simple: low taxes on capital investment, avoidance of excessively burdensome regulation, and open markets here and abroad. We must create a climate in which investment is profitable, productivity is rising, and employers find it profitable to increase their hiring rate. These are the mantras that economists have chanted in the past. But they are our best bet for ensuring a dynamic and growing labor market.

Mr. Lazear, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow

Wait a minute.  What was that one sentence again?

Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006.

Yeah, but George Bush was bad by mainstream media propagandist definition, and Obama is good by the same standard.

If you want welfare, vote for Obama.  You’ll get it until United States of America implodes into a failed banana republic.  And then you’ll get the Marxist-fascist hybrid the left has been dreaming of for the last fifty years.  You want a job?  Vote for a conservative Republican.

Newt Gingrich Just Lost Any Chance At My Vote

May 16, 2011

I don’t know whose vote Newt Gingrich is pursuing.  It certainly isn’t mine.

Mind you, I would have had to hold my nose TIGHTLY to vote for him as it was.

Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan ‘Right-Wing Social Engineering’
Published May 16, 2011
| The Wall Street Journal

White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare “right-wing social engineering,” injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate. 

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law. 

The former House speaker’s decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate. 

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations. 

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. “Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs,” he said.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are on the same side of Romney-care, are they?

We just found out that fewer than HALF of the doctors in Massachusetts are still offering to treat new patients under this terrible health care destruction program:

WASHINGTON — More than half of primary care practices in Massachusetts are not accepting new patients, and wait times for many new patients continue to lengthen five years after the state passed its landmark healthcare reform law, according to a survey sponsored by the state medical society.

[...]

Fewer than half of family physicians (47%) are accepting new patients, the survey found. When the Massachusetts Medical Society first began collecting data on access to family physicians in 2007, 70% were accepting new patients.

You like that trend?  Just let it continue.  Because the number of physicians accepting new patients is going to go down, down, down as long as we’re playing the game of socialist medicine.

We also find that Massachusetts health care recipients are facing increasingly long waiting times to see a doctor as a result of the increasingly few doctors who are willing to accept patients under these awful socialized medicine regulations.  Which in turn forces up the cost of health care, as more and more patients go to expensive emergency room care.

Remember how ObamaCare was sold under the fictitious guise that it would cut cost by eleminating the emergency room visits?  That was a load of methane.

And this is why:

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

Newt Gingrich has bided his time because of his shameful personal past.  But now that he finally gets back into political life, we quickly find that the man has not changed from the days when he abandoned his wife in a cancer ward because he found somebody prettier.  Now he’s abandoning conservatives figuring we’ll have to vote for him in a general election against Obama while he courts the so-called “moderates.”

There are two ways a Republican can run for president: by standing up for conservative values, or by abandoning them to appeal to “moderates.”  Which is to say that one can run as a Republican on Republican values, or one can run as a Republican-In-Name-Only and try to get votes by abandoning those principles.  Ronald Reagan did the former; John McCain and now Newt Gingrich are doing the latter. 

Calling the Republican Congress “right wing” and complicating the ability for Republicans to run on Republican principles disqualifies Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee for president.  Believe me, Obama knows how to run against a RINO; don’t forget he got elected running against a career RINO.

There are a handful of politicians who truly stand for principles.  Newt Gingrich just proved he isn’t one of them.

Oh, and if the picture of Newt and Nancy sitting in the love seat wasn’t enough to trigger that RINO vomit reflex, try this one with Hillary on for size:

Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, has been working alongside the wife of former President Bill Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote – of all things – health care legislation.

But more puzzling than that, Gingrich has been talking up Clinton’s presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as an iconic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying “any Republican who thinks she’s going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons.”

What gives? For Clinton, standing side-by-side with her husband’s onetime nemesis gives her the chance to burnish her credentials among the moderates she has been courting during her time in the Senate.

But in recent comments, she portrayed the rapprochement as one born of shared policy interests, not calculated politics.

“I know it’s a bit of an odd-fellow, or odd-woman, mix,” she said. “But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem.”

For his part, Gingrich, who helped lead the impeachment fight against the former president, called the senator “very practical” and “very smart and very hard-working,” adding, “I have been very struck working with her.”

Don’t let that closing door to your political career hit you on the way out, Newt.

Obama’s Fake-Believe On Oil Drilling

May 16, 2011

Good article appearing on RedState.  My only beef is the claim that Obama is full of “ethanol,” when we all ought to know Obama is actually full of methane (I’m guessing Horowitz was just being polite).

Obama’s Oil Drilling Subterfuge
We’ve been here before.
Posted by Daniel Horowitz (Profile)
Monday, May 16th at 7:48AM EDT

Many liberals in the media are expressing shock over Obama’s apparent willingness to increase oil production.  We all know that he is full of …, I mean ethanol, and they do too.

Those of you who were befuddled at the news that Obama will ‘expand drilling’ in Alaska are not missing anything.  Obama has pulled this political chicanery a number of times.  Whenever a specific proposal that he so adamantly opposes becomes too popular to ignore, he announces his support for it by promising to implement inconsequential reforms.  To that end, he declared during his Saturday radio address that he is “directing the Department of Interior to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, while respecting sensitive areas, and to speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid and south Atlantic”.

So we are to believe that the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and ANWR, all of which are impounded from drilling leases by the administration, are more sensitive than Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve?  Caribou, baby, Caribou in ANWR; drill, baby, drill in ANPR?  Think again.

Here is the report from The Hill:

President Obama announced Saturday the government would hold annual onshore lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve; extend the life of leases in the Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off the coast of Alaska for one year; speed up ongoing Interior Department testing in the mid- and south-Atlantic to gauge the level of resources; and establish an interagency task force to coordinate permitting for offshore drilling in Alaska.

The White House is making the policy shifts after taking intense criticism from Republicans in recent weeks over energy policy as gas prices have topped $4 per gallon in some parts of the country.Many of the proposals are incremental expansions of existing policies and had been set in motion prior to Saturday’s announcement. It’s also unclear by how much the plan will increase domestic oil production. (emphasis added)

Once again, Obama is attempting to diffuse disquiet over his anti-energy policies by embracing the opposition through inconsequential and empty promises.  He attempted this stratagem earlier this year when he announced wholesale regulatory reform in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.  Amidst growing pressure to roll back job killing regulations, Obama announced a momentous effort to “study” onerous regulations.  Needless to say, the regulations in the federal register have only grown since his vapid announcement.  In fact, he is attempting to regulate every facet of our economy; from the broadband providers to oil refineries, without congressional approval.  Nonetheless, he is still studying the problem.

Obama used the same ploy in his State of the Union Address by embracing popular policies, such as a corporate tax cuts and tort reform.  We haven’t heard about them since the address and probably never will.

His promise to reform land lease permits and to allow drilling in Alaska is another attempt at subterfuge for the purpose of tamping down the outrage toward his job-killing, anti-growth policies.  After all, didn’t the administration oppose all three GOP bills that would implement some of these very changes just last week?  House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) released the following statement on Obama’s radio address:

“In the last week, House Republicans passed three bipartisan bills that will create 1.2 million jobs, triple American offshore oil production and generate $840 million in revenue – real action to produce real American energy. It’s ironic that while the White House and Congressional Democrats strongly criticized these efforts, President Obama is now taking tiny baby steps in our direction. The President is finally admitting what Republicans have known all along – that increasing the supply of American energy will help lower prices and create jobs. One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the Administration’s long job-destroying record of locking-up America’s energy resources.”

As Drudge observed yesterday, Obama made the exact same pledge over a year ago, immediately preceding his inexorable and unprecedented moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).  Sadly, the New York Times was credulous enough to believe it and carried water for Obama by headlining a story at that time titled, “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time.”  That didn’t exactly work out according to plan.

As such, don’t be fooled by this foxhole conversion.  His speech does not reflect a newfound obsequious to the will of the American people; he will never abdicate his radical ideology so easily.  Moreover, his political appointees at the Department of Energy and Department of Interior will wait for the inevitable lawsuits from environmental legal defense groups to scuttle the plans.  That is what the administration did when they blocked Shel Oil from drilling in the Arctic Ocean.  The environmentalists are already chomping at the bit.  And as is the case with every other proposal, he will encumber any meaningful drilling policies with endless environmental impact studies.  It’s akin to Obama’s promises of securing the border, even as his minions at the Department of Homeland Security instruct ICE agents not to apprehend non-criminal aliens.  Talk is cheap, Mr. President, and in your case, it is worthless.

Call your members of congress and request that they support H.R. 1777, which would implement comprehensive pro-energy reforms, such as opening ANWR for drilling, streamlining the permit and leasing process, and lawsuit reform (summary and commentary here).  Let’s unmask Obama’s fallacious attempt at being pro-energy and make him take a stand against real energy production legislation!

Very good historical presentation of  Barack Obama’s blatant dishonesty and lack of any kind of integrity.

If you actually want the domestic drilling that will reduce both short- and long-term oil prices, elect a real conservative for president.  One thing is certain: you will NEVER get any kind of relief from Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama Cooking Up A Nasty Batch Of Poison Stew For Democrats With Shocking Inflation

May 13, 2011

If you listen to the mainstream media, Obama is unbeatable.  Which is really quite bizarre, given the state of the “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Inflation: Poison for Obama in 2012
By Nina Easton, senior editor-at-large @CNNMoney May 9, 2011: 7:22 AM ET

FORTUNE — One of my most vivid memories from 1974 was the gas station at the foot of the hill below my Southern California high school — car lines snaking out into the street, heralding the failure of the government’s price controls and lame ideas such as odd-even rationing. That also was the year President Gerald Ford cooked up an equally goofy plan: Whip Inflation Now, or WIN.

As Ford unveiled WIN to a joint session of Congress on Oct. 8, his bulbous forehead gleaming with sweat, he truly believed he was giving voice to a momentous occasion — on a par with F.D.R.’s call to action at the depth of the Great Depression. How could he know that, four decades later, people would still ridicule his pleas to farmers to grow more food, to citizens to “drive less, heat less,” and — the worst — to supporters to wear those ridiculous WIN buttons that the smart set turned upside down to declare “Need Immediate Money”?

That government leaders would embrace such silliness — it was Nixon who instituted the Stalinesque wage and price controls that set the stage for Ford’s call to citizen action — stands as a powerful testament to how much inflation unnerves the body politic. We haven’t experienced real inflation in more than a generation, so this economic blight is mostly an uncertain stranger to pollsters and political strategists — as well as to voters under 50. But if inflation warnings are right, this stranger could become the dark horse of the 2012 election and beyond.

We know that inflation distorts economic behavior. In the 1970s a combination of high tax rates and inflation prompted investors to flee production in favor of protection. “Give me shelter,” recalls Michael Barone, principal co-author of the annual Almanac of American Politics, referring to not only tax behavior but also investments in assets like real estate to beat inflation rates. But inflation also affects voting behavior — and could exacerbate already widespread anxiety and uncertainty about a struggling economy and President Obama’s reaction to it. With rising prices on everything from big-ticket items like college tuition to food and gas, consumers “feel they don’t have any safe ground to stand on,” Barone notes.

As both President Carter and the late President Ford could attest, that’s not a good place for an incumbent to be. John Huizinga, an economist at the University of Chicago, rightly notes that while unemployment affects some people — and rattles many more — “inflation affects everyone.” Huizinga co-authored a 1982 study that opened with the conventional wisdom of that era: “It is well known … that the public regards inflation as a more serious problem than unemployment.” Looking back, that seems astonishing. While the double-digit inflation of the 1970s had inched down to 8%, unemployment at that time was still a whopping 9.7%.

By historical standards, the latest consumer price index showing a 1.2% annual rise remains super low. But consumers are being hit with hikes to two key components that aren’t included in that number — gas and food. Consumer Growth Partners recently called the rise in grocery prices (6.5% in the first quarter) “the sharpest in a generation.” And gas prices are pushing toward $4 a gallon. Including gas and food, the annual inflation rate is more than double the rise in the CPI.

Even if systemwide inflation doesn’t return in this election cycle, rising gas and food prices will be on the minds of voters. President Obama already faces an unemployment rate that has only recently slipped below 9%, worsened by long-term jobless rates unprecedented since World War II. The Congressional Budget Office now predicts an unemployment rate of 8.2% on Election Day 2012; no President since F.D.R. has been reelected with unemployment over 8%. (President Reagan, facing a similarly painful recession, was elected with a 7.2% jobless rate.)

Add inflation to that mix and it could become a poisonous stew for Democrats. And we’ll know the President is in real trouble if his staff starts handing out buttons.

There’s a video (apparently unrelated to the above article) at the site with the title, “Fed has more to worry about.”  At just before the 2:30 mark, the expert guest says (and this is not a completely accurate transcript, but it’s pretty close):

“A lot of people think that what they’re going to do is raise interest rates and it’s going to turn into a replay of the Hooverism of the 1930s in this country where they raised rates just as the economy was beginning to creep forward.  And then you just end up with another big recession.”

And, of course, in this case, “another big recession” was otherwise known as THE GREAT FREAKING DEPRESSION!!!

Thanks to Obama and his Fed’s incredibly risky and immoral policies, shockingly high interest rates are a fait accompli.  You don’t spend (“throw away” on political patronate pork is more accurate) the trillions of dollars that these fools have spent; and you don’t simply create money out of thin air the way these clowns have done with their QE1 and their QE2 and very shortly QE3 and just get away with it.

The Fed is going to be forced to raise interest rates.  That is simply a fact.  The Obama Federal Reserve is about the only entity on planet earth that refuses to recognize that inflation is becoming a huge problem.  And the moment they ARE forced to ultimately raise rates, you’re going to start to see really ugly get really really really ugly.  Because there’s almost no possible way now that we’re going to be out of our economic woes before the Fed is forced to deal with inflation.

And yes, oh yes, inflation is most definitely here.

This was the Jimmy Carter problem.  And as people like me have been pointing out all along:

It took Ronald Reagan to get America out of a death spiral last time.  Sadly, this time there may not BE another Ronald Reagan.  And this time it may well just be too late.

The beast is coming.

Obama Keeps Attacking Businesses, Yet Keeps Demanding They Create More Jobs While He Attacks Them

May 13, 2011

It’s not all that unlike a drunk husband punching his wife in the face every day while constantly saying she needs to love him more:

Editorial: Dems Blame Business For Own Bad Policies
Posted 07:02 PM ET

Economy: President Obama says he wants businesses to “step up” and hire more. If he’s really sincere about wanting more jobs, he should stop demonizing and punishing American corporations for their success.

‘Companies … (are) making a lot of money,” President Obama told a town hall meeting Thursday, “and now’s the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products.”

But the fact they’re not “betting” more isn’t their fault. It’s Obama’s — and his Democrat allies in Congress. Their tax-and-spend policies have pushed our nation to the brink of financial ruin, creating uncertainty and an unstable investment environment for companies.

The president let his true feelings slip later Thursday, telling a laid-off government worker there’s “nothing more important” than working for the government. He then blamed “huge layoffs” in government for our current job ills. So why do businesses have to “step up”?

There are, as a matter of record, 418,000 more government jobs today than when the recession began, as noted by the National Review’s Jim Geraghty. And face it, government “jobs” are mostly a waste, far below the private sector in productivity.

Even so, Democrats have in recent weeks implied repeatedly that companies are somehow unpatriotic for refusing to invest the $2 trillion in cash on their books.

But what sane company would invest at a time when it’s in the government’s greedy cross hairs? Or when both the White House and Congress repeatedly criticize “millionaires and billionaires,” and threaten to crush small businesses — the engines of job growth — with higher taxes and new regulations?

As Obama spoke about jobs Thursday, oil CEOs were being grilled by Senate Democrats at a hostile hearing. Their crime? They’re making fat profits. Time was, profits were a sign of success. Today, far-left Democrats think “profit” is a dirty word.

For the record, oil companies’ profits are up because oil prices have soared. This isn’t due to “speculators,” but to the White House’s foolish policy of keeping hundreds of millions of barrels of offshore oil off-limits — driving up prices and boosting foreign dependence.

Instead, the White House subsidizes money-losing alternative energy sources, none of which is ready to replace our current energy supply. Prices can only go up.

Then there’s Boeing, one of America’s great companies. It wants to open a $2 billion factory in South Carolina, creating thousands of new jobs. A cause for celebration by the White House? Hardly.

The National Labor Relations Board has charged Boeing with a labor-law violation because South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states. If you look at which party gets union donations, you’ll understand why.

Fact is, we’re 7 million jobs short of where we were when the recession began, there are eight unemployed people for every job opening and, despite April’s gain of 244,000, we still aren’t creating new jobs fast enough.

Yet Obama & Co. continue to play games, destroying jobs and blaming others for the economic carnage.

I learned today that the oil companies receive 13% of the tax subsidies for the energy industry.  And produce 67% of all the energy America uses.  All the other energy sources combined – including all the “green” energy sources the left loves so much – receive 87% of the tax subsidies.  Even though they produce only 33% of all the energy America uses.  So Democrats want to drive the producers of two-thirds of our energy out of business and reward the remaining third of our energy with massive tax subsidy boondoggles.

And apparently businesses are supposed to say, “Hey, that’s brilliant!  We need to climb on board THAT kind of brilliant-mobile!!!”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers