Archive for February, 2012

Democrats Are Hypocrite Demagogue Fools When It Comes To Gas Prices

February 29, 2012

Rush Limbaugh offers a rather entertaining look into how the Democrats 1) managed to demonize George Bush when the gas prices were actually far less of a problem/crisis than they are now under Obama while simultaneously asserting that Republicans have no right whatsoever to do to Obama what they themselves did to George Bush; 2) believe that Obama should a) open the strategic petroleum reserve and/or b) push Saudi Arabia to increase drilling – both of which are means to increase the supply of gasoline – yet simultaneously insist that the US’  increasing its own gasoline supply by drilling would have absolutely no impact on gas prices whatsoever; 3) are somehow conveniently forgetting how astonishingly stupid and vacuous Obama’s “solutions” to the problem of high gas prices truly were.

The Democrat Gas Hypocrisy
February 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael Janofsky at the New York Times, April 24th, 2006, about six years ago: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices.” This is back in 2006. The Democrats were running for office in the midterm elections trying to talk us into a recession. This is after they had failed at trying to talk us into failure in Iraq. “Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country. With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places…” We’re now over $5 in California. In 2006, with “prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it ‘is one of the first things people bring up’ at her campaign stops. To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.”Yep!”‘It’s a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers,’ said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York…” What else do we have, Chuck-U? Oh, Chuck-U is in the news today, folks. Chuck-U tells Clinton to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Senator Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press…” She’s got her own section in the program todayfor her own rampant hypocrisy. (We’ll get to that in due course.) Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Saudi Arabia to boost output as rising prices are hitting consumer at the gasoline pump.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!Wait a minute. More oil? Chuck-U wants more oil? Is that what he’s asking the Saudis to do, pump more oil? Is that right? Is that what that means? Senator Schumer tells Clinton to pressure Saudis to pump more oil? He wants more oil? Then how come this regime vetoes the Keystone pipeline and has a drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico and makes fun of/mocks the concept of producing more oil in the United States? So Senator Chuck-U Schumer is asking Senator Clinton to make us more dependent on foreign oil! That’s what he’s doing when he’s asking her to pressure the Saudis, pump more oil. He wants us to be more dependent. He doesn’t want to use our own oil. Obama doesn’t want to use our own oil.How come Chuck-U is not out there saying, “Everybody go buy a Volt?” How come Chuck-U’s not saying, “Hey, everybody go buy a Prius, go buy a hybrid”? How come Chuck-U’s not out there saying, “Get your tire gauge out and make sure the pressure is right and get a tune-up”? That’s what Obama does. So the Democrats want more oil. They want the price to come down with more supply. Funny how that never works domestically. So 2006, New York Times: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices” — at $3 a gallon. From BigGovernment.com Wynton Hall with the story: “Seven Gas Facts Obama Cannot Escape — “1. In September 2008, Barack Obama’s ‘Nobel-prize winning physicist’ of an Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal: ‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,'” which is much higher than what we pay. Obama has said he wants high prices. Why don’t these guys come out and say, “This is exactly what we want”? Steven Chu, the energy secretary, Nobel-prize winning physicist has advocated for higher prices. So has Obama. Now they’re getting higher prices. You know why? They want higher prices so you’ll have to go out and buy a Volt or a hybrid or get on a bus or get on a subway or take mass transit and become like a number. A robot. An interchangeable part of the system, like a Chinese citizen taking orders and dictates from the state and their command-and-control economy.

The truth is, they want higher prices. The problem is it’s an election year. Can’t advocate for higher gas prices in an election year. “2. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama admitted that, like his future Energy Secretary Mr. Chu, he believed that high gas prices would be a good thing because they would force Americans to ween [sic] themselves off of oil, but that he would have ‘prefered [sic] a gradual adjustment.'” We had the sound bite last week. We reminded you of it when gasoline hit four bucks and Obama said: It’s okay; it’s okay. I’m just a little upset how fast it got there. “3. On January 19, 2009, the day before Barack Obama [immaculated] gas prices were $1.84 a gallon. As of February 20, 2012 a gallon of gas cost $3.59,” and now it’s close to $5 a gallon. And don’t forget, in 2006 it was $3 a gallon, and the Democrats are out exploiting it and trying to turn it into a big political issue. “4. As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson points out, ‘Offshore drilling permits are being issued at less than half the rate of the previous administration. The average number of leases issued on public lands is less than half than during President Clinton’s term.’ 5. In 2008, Barack Obama seemed perfectly comfortable with soaring energy prices if they meant curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“As Mr. Obama confessed: ‘Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'” In their hearts and minds, Obama and the left are LOVING gas prices go up. They just can’t say so. But they love it. And that’s why there’s not a huge effort to bring them down. There’s a huge effort to make you think they want to, but how many stories have you seen where Obama says, “Ah, there’s really not a whole lot the president can do”? And Jay Carney says, “Well, there’s not a whole lot the president can do.” In 2006, don’t forget, Chuck Schumer and John F. Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) were mocking Bush for asking the Saudis to pump more oil! Arabs producing more oil makes prices go down, but somehow the US pumping more oil won’t make any difference.

That’s what they tell us. “Nah-nah-nah. That’s the stupidest thing we ever heard of! That’s a tired, worn-out cliche. ‘Drill, drill, drill,’ and for 30 years they’ve been saying that. That’s what the Republicans always say. Just drill, drill. That’s gonna take us two to three years!” Well, where would we be if 30 years ago we had just started drilling, drilling, drilling? Chuck-U Schumer in 2008: “Schumer to Bush: Stop ‘Coddling’ Big Oil, Saudis,” and get on ‘em and make ‘em pump more. And Chuck-U wants Hillary to do the same thing now. Obama, he can lower the sea level but he can’t lower the price of oil. “7. Try as he might, President Obama’s campaign will try to distance themselves from the fact that a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign was a pledge to reduce the ‘pain at the pump’ caused by high gas prices.”

We can go back and we can get all of that audio that was a centerpiece of his campaign, a pillar, to reduce pain at the pump. But missing no opportunity to invoke class warfare, Obama said, “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis. Here in Indiana gas costs $3.60 a gallon,” he said in 2008. Now it’s 2012, we’re over $5 a gallon, and there’s not much we can do about it.

And from MSNBC: “8 Reasons Why Gas Will Hit $5 a Gallon This Year.” I’ll just read through them. Not gonna give you details. Number one, Strait of Hormuz. Number two, Iran. Number three, refiners raising prices. Number four, other geopolitical risks. Number five, the European Union may save itself. Number six, the US economic recovery means higher oil prices. Number seven, summertime. Number eight, supply risk. In all eight of these reasons, not one of them mention Obama or his energy policies. So we have every effort in the world being made to shield Obama from any relationship to high gasoline prices, despite what the Democrats did all during ’05, ’06, ’07, and ’08. We even have some Republicans now saying, “We really don’t want to try to tie the president to this, market forces no president can control.”

We said back in 2006 there’s nothing Bush can do about it. The president does not have a magic wand. Releasing from the strategic reserves doesn’t make a significant long-term difference in the price of oil. And people who said that back then want us to say something consistent now. “Well, come on, let’s not jump on Obama for this. We all know honestly that presidents can’t do anything about it.” Bush was not choking the supply, however. Obama is. Obama is a factor in the price of gasoline. See, that’s the difference, Obama is a factor in the price of oil. Obama wants higher oil prices, his energy secretary and he have both said so. They want higher oil prices. This is not making it up. They want higher oil prices. It’s less freedom. It’s less mobility. It forces you into alternative buying decisions when it’s time to get a new car. So, Obama does have something to do with high oil prices.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Eric in Glen Arbor, Michigan, you’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Longtime listener from the early Clinton years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: The reason why I’m calling is about the oil prices and what we’re paying at the pump. Lots of news about it, and if we go to five-, six-dollar-a-gallon oil, that’s gonna sink the economy, and I think it’s time to fight back, and I think we can fight back by several perspectives. One, we, as a consumer, can cut back slightly on our fuel usage. And, two, instead of just releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic energy reserves, we need to do it in a strategic manner. For example, release seven million barrels of oil at, say, $89 a barrel. It’s about 109 bucks a barrel today. Release it at below the market price and then make several subsequent releases without telling anybody –

RUSH: There’s not enough oil there to make any difference. The real question is what is the price of algae by the gallon, because Obama has suggested pond scum as the next alternative fuel for oil. We cannot, by the way, and I appreciate the big-heartedness here in wanting to conserve, but there’s gonna be forced conservation at five dollars a gallon. There was a four. People will drive less because they can’t afford it. By the way, the economy’s already sinking. But you get to five or six dollars a gallon, the choice to conserve will not be something you have to force on people, it’ll be happening naturally. But even at that, conserving is not growth, and growth is what our economy needs. Growth and supply, growth in expansion, demand, all these things, that’s what this country and this economy needs. We can’t conserve our way to growth of anything.

END TRANSCRIPT

One look at the record of gas prices between George Bush and Barack Obama is all it takes – it is literally as simple as looking at a picture to understand how badly Obama has failed America.

2011 was THE most expensive year for gasoline prices in the entire history of the United States.  And then Obama began 2012 by giving us THE most expensive January in the history of the country, and followed that up by giving us THE most expensive February in the history of the country.

And Obama just threw the Keystone oil pipeline into Canada’s face and demanded that Canada sell its oil to China.

Gasoline prices have now DOUBLED in the three years of the failed Obama regime.

“Hope and change” means $6 a gallon gasoline in Florida and gas prices that are very likely going to be that high across the entire nation by Memorial Day.

And consider how this president DEMONIZED his predecessor in speeches like this one in which he said:

What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

And now the same man who attacked Bush isn’t responsible for the very same thing he attacked Bush over even though the situation is now WORSE under his completely failed leadership.

Because – to quote Obama himself – “that’s how badly OBAMA has failed.”

Bush Vs. Obama On Gasoline Prices In One Very Simple Picture

February 28, 2012

Update, September 11, 2012: my new article on gas prices looks at Bush’s entire presidency (average price $2.14/gal) and his first four years (average price $1.68/gal) to DOCUMENT that he was FAR BETTER at gas prices than was Obama thus far in his first four years (average price $2.99/gal).  Please read it too.

Update, September 4, 2012: Given that liberals are genuinely idiotic people, it is apparently necessary to point out that the article and the accompanying chart that I cite below was compiled in March of 2011. How long had Obama been president as of March of 2011? If you do the math, you will find that March 2011 occurred 26 months into Obama’s presidency. Which is to point out that every single liberal who has bitched about my “cherry picking data” is an astonishingly idiotic dumbass. The Heritage article that I cite below compares the first 26 months of Obama’s gas prices – which was all they had available in March 2011 – with the EXACT SAME PERIOD DURING BUSH’S PRESIDENCY. That is as apples-to-apples as you can get.

At this point in September 2012, Obama has been president for 43 months. If we compare Obama’s first 43 months in office to Bush’s first 43 months in office, you will find that Obama has still been awful in comparison.  At this same point during Bush’s first term, in September of 2004, gasoline cost $1.89 a gallon.  Versus with Obama and gas prices of $3.82 a gallon today.  There is absolutely no legitimate comparison that will make Obama look anything other than terrible.  Barack Obama is the “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” president.  Barack Obama is the president who has literally said he WANTED gas prices to go up as long as the increase was gradual so he wouldn’t get blamed.  Barack Obama is the president who appointed an Energy Secretary who is literally on the record saying he wanted to see U.S. gas prices at $9-$10 a gallon.

The shocking gas prices Bush faced in 2008 were due to the fact that Democrats took over both the House and the Senate in 2006 and refused to allow ANY domestic oil production or refinery construction WHATSOEVER until Bush finally issued his executive order in frustration.  The shocking gas prices Obama has faced and will continue to face are due to the fact that Obama is a leftwing ideologue.  Which is why Obama is setting records for high gas prices and will continue to set such records if the American people are foolish enough to allow him to remain in office.

What liberal ideologues want to do – and you see them doing it in the comments – is cite the very worst gas prices for Bush that occurred during Bush’s SECOND term. If you want to consider gas prices over a long period, it is OBAMA who has set the record for high gas prices.  LIBERALS are the ones cherry picking their data to selectively compare the second Bush term with a nonexistant second Obama term. Obama hasn’t HAD a second term to compare with Bush’s second term and I hope he doesn’t get one; but if he does I predict we will be seeing $8 gas prices rather than the $4 we saw at the worst of the end of the Bush second term. As just one example, Iran is by all accounts at the threshold of attaining nuclear weapons because Obama has abjectly failed to deal with this crisis that the Democrats once blatantly mocked Bush for warning us about. That means that either we (and Israel) do nothing and Iran becomes a nuclear weaponized power and is free to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and drive up international oil prices at will with impunity, or else Israel – hopefully with the aid of the United States – will attack Iran to destroy its nuclear capability. Either way, I guarantee you we will be seeing gas prices skyrocketing during what would be an Obama second term.  That’s the first thing you should know.

The second thing you should know is that when oil prices reached their high under Bush, President Bush took a conservative path which resulted in a wild success.  I have documented this elsewhere:

You can see the impact that America drilling for its own oil has on prices – and how despicable the mainstream media can be in covering up the truth – in the following CBS piece entitled “The Immediate Benefit Of Offshore Drilling” from July 17, 2008:

After trading at a record high of $147 a barrel Friday, the price of oil saw its largest one-day drop since the 2003 beginning of the Iraq war on Tuesday, falling $6.44 a barrel. Wednesday, it fell another $3.71, to $135.03, and at one point was trading as low as $132.

So what happened? As is usually the case with markets, a variety of factors caused this dramatic drop. According to the Associated Press, the Energy Information Administration announced that U.S. crude-oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels; beleaguered banks have been selling off valuable energy contracts to pay for other debts; and there’s even some speculation that computer programs used by Wall Street may create a “cascading effect” once prices start to drop.

But bizarrely, the AP didn’t mention that on Monday – again, the day of the single biggest one-day drop in oil prices in five years – President Bush removed the executive order imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States.

To think that this dramatic and unexpected move by the Bush administration didn’t have a significant effect on oil prices is folly. Even Democrats admit that relatively small margins in oil production could have a huge impact on prices.

The price per barrel of crude oil – which was at an all-time high the day Bush signed the moratorium that ended the ban on offshore drilling after going up and up and up to that point – continued to drop and drop. By September, it was below $109 a barrel. By October it had dropped even more. And it kept dropping.

See my comment to this article here and my article here for still more documentation to this fact that Bush’s executive order that ended the offshore drilling ban directly resulted in the price of oil/gasoline plunging.

And there is also this:

The price of a barrel of oil IMMEDIATELY dropped by $9.26 AS BUSH WAS SPEAKING [when he ended the federal moratorium on offshore drilling].

In the few days that followed, the precipitous upward climb in the price of oil went down, down, DOWN:

Update: July 18, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $128.88 a Barrel

Update: July 17, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $130.73 a Barrel

Update July 15, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $138.74 a Barrel Biggest drop in 17 years

We had the price of oil dropping by ten bucks a day every day after Bush ended the moratorium.

You can look at the link that has the NYSE prices to keep watching the trend.

George Bush began his presidency with gasoline prices at $1.40 a gallon.  When they got over $4 a gallon in 2008, George W. Bush finally used a conservative solution to the problem – and oil prices IMMEDIATELY plunged that very day and then continued to go down.  That is simply a documented fact.  Such that when Bush left office and Obama began his presidency, the average national price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline was $1.85 a gallon.  So if you look at the entirety of Bush’s presidency, gasoline went from $1.40 a gallon to $1.85 a gallon.

Obama began his own presidency with gasoline prices at that $1.85 a gallon and they have gone up and up and up.  And the difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama will NEVER take the type of conservative solution that Bush took and frankly that Bill Clinton took and allow the domestic drilling that America needs to get control of its gas prices.  Obama has now repeatedly attempted to take credit for oil leases that were signed and granted by George W. Bush even as he himself has refused to sign such leases himself.  To sum up Obama’s failure, I need only use one word: “Keystone.”

End update.

I’m not a tease.  Here’s the picture:

It’s a truly remarkable picture - particularly given the way the media attacked Bush for his high gas price increase and then largely refused to attack Obama for his ridiculously insane gas price increase.

Heritage nails it in an article (which is where I got the above chart from):

 In Pictures: Bush Vs. Obama On Gas Prices
Rory Cooper
March 4, 2011 at 4:00 pm

As Americans continue to feel the effects of President Obama’s anti-oil agenda at the pump, defensive liberals are circling back to a familiar line of counter-attack: blame Bush. The media vacuum on gas prices has made this line of attack all the more promising with very little national coverage being given to the president’s destructive domestic drilling agenda. Unfortunately it misses an obvious point.

President George W. Bush was mostly attacked for wanting to drill too much (or being “cozy” with the oil industry), while President Obama’s policies are rooted in unilaterally shutting down the domestic oil industry amidst rising prices and a struggling economy.

Yes, the price of gasoline reached historic levels, rising above $4/gallon during Bush’s second term, but that wasn’t due to a lack of trying to increase domestic supply. U.S. domestic supply is but one factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when a president purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%, with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be scrutinized.

During the first twenty-six months of President Bush’s first term in office, the price of gasoline increased by 7%. At the end of his second term, the price had decreased by 9% from the time he took office (adjusted for inflation). During the first twenty-six months of Obama’s term in office, the price of gasoline has spiked over 67% with no relief in site.

Clearly, other mitigating factors were at work between those two time periods. U.S. demand is one such factor, as is global supply disruptions, cartel pricing and the cost to refine and distribute, but the current price spikes obligate serious people to scrutinize our nation’s energy policy.

President Bush’s response to $4/gallon gasoline was to lift presidential and congressional moratoriums on expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, a move that many critics say came too late. But what about Obama?

Some on the right have criticized Obama for having no energy policy. This is wrong. Obama’s energy policy is working exactly the way it is designed. This administration knows that unless the price of fossil fuels skyrocket, expensive alternative energy sources, no matter how heavily subsidized, will continue to be unattractive to American consumers.

Obviously, this risky desire to have high gas prices is a punitive policy that foolishly ignores how Americans use petroleum. While oil is largely a transportation fuel, solar and wind can only contribute to our electricity demands. Oil accounts for less than 1% of our electricity demand.

The liberal fascination with developing expensive vehicles that run on electricity doesn’t change that: 1) Solar or wind powered vehicles don’t commercially exist; 2) The cars that do run on electricity, or even battery-powered hybrids still require gas; and 3) the high cost of the alternatively fueled vehicles makes them largely insignificant in the auto market and cost-prohibitive to the average consumer.

Sure, it would be ideal to have a national fleet of cars that are inexpensive and run on cheap and widely available alternative sources of energy. But the markets have demonstrated this reality is nowhere close to fruition. And when you try to hasten that reality by artificially jacking up the price of gas, the economic effects are felt largely by the poorest among us and disincentives business owners from hiring as their fixed operating costs increase.

Think about it, who feels the pain of an extra $1 at the gas pump? The rich guys that the left demonizes or the middle-to-low income wage earners who balance their budgets by the penny, not the dollar? If the only cars available on the market were $40,000 Chevy Volts, would a Lexus or BMW consumer be hit hard, or would the family looking for a barely affordable mode of shuttling their family be affected? Consumer Reports said Obama’s heralded Volt “is an expensive way to be green.”

This economic, energy and transportation reality—the here and now—is why President Bush called for more domestic oil exploration at the same time he called for an end to our “addiction” to oil. You cannot shut down one job-creating industry while you hope another emerges. Hope is not a smart energy strategy.

This week, the Obama administration began floating the idea that depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is a viable response to rising oil prices. The SPR is where America stores roughly 700 billion barrels of oil in case of a catastrophe. Its drawdown would have a marginally positive affect on gas prices for a very short time period. Once that supply is partially or completely eliminated, we would be back to square one. In other words, the action would be purely political and designed to politically disguise a terrible energy policy.

President Obama must stop killing energy jobs, hurting American business owners and penalizing taxpayers at the pump in order to score unrelated points with his environmental base. Obama needs to end the EPA practice of imposing regulations on refineries that increase the cost of oil production. He must stop looking to raise taxes on oil producers while heavily subsidizing other energy industries.

And Obama must at least end his de facto moratorium and get America back to the domestic supply capabilities we had just two years ago. As Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in a hearing on oil prices this week: “In January 2009 there were 16 permits issued. The next year there were 12 and this January, only two. We’re so far off the historic level. We’ve got to get it back up as quickly as possible.”

This time, in this economy, with these transportation and energy realities is not the time for Obama to curry favor with eco-liberals by raising the cost of living for the average American family. President Bush may have wanted to increase the drilling status quo by too much in your opinion, but surely we can all agree that intentionally decreasing our domestic supply makes little sense today.

Gasoline is over $4 a gallon across the state of California; it is over $5 in Los Angeles; and in some places in Florida it is over $6 a gallon.

On June 24, 2008, Obama said in demonizing Bush:

What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

YOU peddled a whole whopping load of false promises, Obama you liar.  You want to tell us about “irresponsible policies” now, Mister Solyndra???

Gas prices could very well hit $6 by summer.

US Per Capita Debt Now Actually Significantly WORSE Than Greece

February 27, 2012

One day, not all that long ago, the Greek people woke up to learn that they had a serious, traumatic debt crisis that they couldn’t fix without going through years of pain.  Mind you, it had been going on for years, but neither their political leadership or their mainstream media informed the people of the developing disaster.

One day, not all that long from now, the American people are going to wake up to discover the exact same thing.

We’ve got two things the Greeks don’t have to make us all the more morally culpable for our disaster: 1) the Greek disaster itself; and 2) the greater freedom of information that America had by right until we allowed criminal leftwing propagandists to usurp our constitutional freedom of the press to challenge the status quo and print the truth.

We’re not as bad as Greece; we’re WORSE than Greece.

And when we come crashing down, it will be from a much higher place to a much lower depth.  And there won’t be any European Union bailout to help us.

U.S. per capita government debt worse than Greece
February 23, 2012 3:03pm
by Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer

According to a new analysis by the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, the United States has a higher per capita debt burden than any European country, including riot-ridden Greece.

Using the most recent data available from the International Monetary Fund, the Senate Budget Committee found that U.S. federal government debt per capita is nearly $45,000. That is almost 15 percent higher than the per capita debt burden of Greece ($38,937).

The Senate Budget Committee also notes that our debt per capita would rise to $75,000 by 2020 if President Obama’s budget became law.

Earlier last month, the U.S. government’s total out standing debt, $15,419,800,222,325, surpassed the nation’s gross domestic product ($15,294,300,000,000).

Let me tell you something: it isn’t for nothing that the most prestigious prize in journalism is named after one of the world’s worst insults to “journalism.”

Barack Obama is leading this nation to a quick suicide that will result in a lingering and painful economic death and the media won’t report the truth.

The beast is coming.

America will fall very soon; and when it falls no nation on earth will have ever deserved to fall more.  Because we should have seen our death coming for decades and we refused to change our ways.  And because we chose as a result to consume a diet of constant lies and demagoguery from the propaganda media (and see another example here).

Jesus, speaking of God’s people Israel who refused to acknowledge reality and accept their promised Messiah, said:

“If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace–but now it is hidden from your eyes.  The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.  They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you” (Luke 19:42-44).

We are just as determinedly blind as they were; and God will allow this nation to face a complete collapse as a result of our moral stupidity and our hostility to truth and reality.  And while God promised His special people the Jews that He would restore them, He made no such promise to America.  When we go down, there will be no coming back for us.

It will be after the collapse of America and as a result of the collapse of America that the world will be plunged into catastrophe and chaos unlike ever seen in human history as recorded in Revelation chapter Six.  The four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride in to plague the world, representing war, economic disaster, famine and the Antichrist.

The Antichrist will come riding in on his white horse to save the day and unite the world in the aftermath of the staggering disaster that Barack Obama is bringing.  He will be everything that big government liberals have ever dreamed of.  And you can be certain that the mainstream media will love him too.  But in only a few years his big government liberal policies will result in total hell on earth.

Space Aliens Leaving Different Crop Circles In California Desert

February 26, 2012

When we went to the moon in 1971, our astronauts had a moon buggy (aka the lunar rover) to cruise around in:

You would expect a little more advancement in the “earth buggy” of a space alien, wouldn’t you?

Maybe theirs would look like… well, something like this:

And here’s the thing most of you fellers won’t believe: I’ve seen ‘em.  Strange, helmeted beings driving around on their versions of a moon buggy.  Probably out collecting rock samples or something like that.

Now, the aliens I’ve seen have all been in California, out in the desert.  And pretty much everything is truly different in these parts.

So while the rest of the world have their crop circles -

- the California desert has its very own brand of them:

Just like with all the other crop circles, no earthling really knows what fabulous message the aliens are trying to communicate.

All I can tell you is that the California desert crop circle looks like fun to make.

Please Don’t Bother To Vote: Pharaoh Obama Already Re-Elected (Putin Alert)

February 25, 2012

Obama is pretty confident that he’s going to be re-elected just like his fellow Marxist traveller Vladimir Putin:

Obama: I’ve got ‘five years’ left to solve immigration
By BYRON TAU |
2/23/12 12:31 PM EST

In an interview with Univision Radio, President Barack Obama said that he has “five years” left in his presidency to figure out issues like comprehensive immigration reform. Striking a confident note about his reelection prospects, Obama assured a largely Hispanic audience that he has not given up on getting an immigration bill done — one that would provide a pathway to citizenship.
 
“My presidency is not over,” Obama told Univision’s Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo. “I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done.”
 
Obama also said that Hispanic voters would ultimately face an easy choice in deciding between him and the Republican nominee in November — emphasizing his support for comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.
 
“So far, … we haven’t seen any of the Republican candidates even support immigration reform. In fact, their leading candidate said he would veto even the DREAM Act, much less comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said, in an apparent reference to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. “So the choice at the presidential level will not be that difficult.”
 
Obama also defended his administration’s approach to immigration, which has been characterized by a high level of deportations, saying that the law needed to be changed and Congress needs to act.
 
“The only way we’re going to do this is to get something passed through Congress, and that’s why we have to keep the pressure up. Unfortunately, the Republican side, which used to at least give lip service to immigration reform, now they’ve gone completely to a different place, and have shown themselves unwilling to talk at all about any sensible solutions to this issue, and we’re going to have to just keep up the pressure until they act,” Obama said.
 
Hispanic voters remain an important part of Obama’s coalition, though his approval rating has dropped 30 points among Hispanics from a 2009 high of 86 percent approval. A more recent Univision/Latino Decisions poll, however, puts his approval back up to 72 percent. In 2008, Obama won the Latino vote by a 36-point spread, beating John McCain 67 percent to 31 percent, according to national exit polls.

Obama didn’t do a damn thing to fulfill his promise to Latinos.  He had total almost dictatorial Democrat control of the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and he didn’t even bother to TRY to get anything done.  But hey, the fact that he lied to Hispanics last election just means they should trust this lying weasel all the more now, right???  Apparently so, in Obama-logic.

Communists and Democrats have many things in common: one of them is their ability to rig elections.

So please don’t bother showing up to vote.  Because Obama’s got this one in the bag and it would really be nothing more than a waste of time.

Obama ‘Hope And Change’ You Can Take Right Out Of Your Own Pocket: Florida Drivers Are Paying Nearly $6 A Gallon For Gas (You Will Too Soon)

February 25, 2012

Many Americans heard allof Obama’s “promises” and listened to the mainstream media praise him as a “transformational candidate” who was “sort of God.”  They wanted to know what an Obama presidency would be like.

Well now they know:

Florida Drivers Shelling Out Nearly $6 A Gallon At Some Gas Stations
By Matthew L. Higgins
February 22, 2012 11:47 AM

TAMPA (CBS Tampa) — Talk about pain at the pump! Some Florida drivers are spending nearly $6 a gallon to fill up their gas tanks.

According to GasBuddy.com, motorists are shelling out $5.89 for a gallon of regular gas at a Shell station in Lake Buena Vista, topping out at $5.99 a gallon for premium. It doesn’t get better at a Suncoast Energy station in Orlando, where drivers are paying $5.79 for a gallon of regular.

“Prices over in the Disney World area are much higher than any other place in Florida,” Jessica Brady, AAA spokeswoman, told CBS Tampa, adding that people regularly complain about gas prices in that area.

The Sunshine State is opening up its wallet, paying an average of $3.67 a gallon of unleaded gas, 12 cents more than the national average. And it’s only expected to go up.

“It doesn’t look like we will have relief at the pump anytime soon,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “I do think we will see prices surpass $4 a gallon. I think we will see that closer to spring time.”

One reason for the high prices is the conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has threatened to disrupt oil shipments through the waterway due to the European Union sanctions leveled against the country over its nuclear program, causing the price of crude to skyrocket. Trading on a barrel of crude today is a little over $106.

Another reason for the high gas prices: positive economic news. The drop in the unemployment rate and improved housing market numbers have caused gas and oil prices to rise.

“I know it frustrates quite a few consumers why positive news will lead to higher prices,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “It really just comes down to speculation.”

A third culprit behind the gas price boom is Greece. The EU’s bailout for the indebted country only adds to the global fuel demand.

And because of these reasons, Brady believes that Florida and the rest of the U.S. could see historic gas prices.

“I think this year we will see much higher highs.”

Believe it or not, those prices aren’t the highest in the nation. According to GasBuddy.com, motorists in Alaska are paying a whopping $6.34 for a gallon of regular at some gas stations. The cheapest gas can be found in Wyoming at $2.75 a gallon.

Obama is a pathologically dishonest weasel who is trying to take credit for BUSH’S ENERGY POLICIES to claim that we’re drilling more of our own oil than ever before.  Meanwhile, Obama has doubled down on PREVENTING drilling over every federal area that he can control:

Since taking office, he has declared 85% of our offshore areas off limits, decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies by 70%, rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and has 10 federal agencies planning more regulation of hydraulic fracturing…. The president’s ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ approach to energy security is hurting consumers.”

As one fellow furious blogger notes:

Here are the facts. Offshore is down 30% since Obama took office. Rocky Mountain federal lands are down 70% under Obama. He has held 85% of the outer shelf off limits. Only 3% of federal lands are available for lease. Obama says domestic production is up. It’s up due to francking and many in his party and administration want to stop that.

Here’s a quote from his energy secretary, Chu. President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Obama is a truly evil man.  He lies so outrageously it is beyond unreal.

Four years ago he was demonizing Bush for the price of gas.  Now all of a sudden everyone and everything is to blame except the same office of the president.

Obama Apologizes For Evil America Burning Terrorist Korans; Nobody Need Apologize For Two Murdered American Soldiers

February 24, 2012

Obama began his presidency with an apology tour to the Muslim world.  And then he never quit.  And it’s frankly stunning what crap has come out of his mouth while he was groveling before his Muslim masters.  You know, when is isn’t just plain bowing down to them:

Obama apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for vile, wicked, despicable America again (America is the most evil country on earth and we’ve got the president to prove it).  There was no need for anyone to apologize for our two murdered soldiers killed by an Afghan soldier.  Clearly, they deserved to die to pay for America’s crimes.

Hamid Karzai, whose country was proven righteous by the fact that America already admitted it was the villain in this moral play, is demanding that the soldiers who had anything to do with the Koran burning be put on trial.  He should get his way: after all, given how guilty we are and all, it seems that two murdered Americans is hardly enough to pay for our crime.

It makes me sick inside to think of “my” president calling the president of Afghanistan to apologize for the destruction of some books when the soldiers of that same president of Afghanistan murdered American troops in cold blood.

Newt Gingrich brought this “apology crap” to light:

Gingrich was the first Republican White House hopeful to criticize the president for apologizing after Muslim holy books containing extremist language were burned by NATO soldiers.

Gingrich told a crowd in Spokane, Washington: “President Obama surrendered twice today and I think that deserves to be brought to the country’s attention.”

He continued, “The president apologized for the burning, but I haven’t seen the president demand that the government of Afghanistan apologize for the killing of two young Americans.”

Gingrich was referring to two American troops who were killed in Afghanistan Thursday. The troops were killed by a person wearing an Afghan National Army uniform, according to a U.S. official.

For the record, the Korans in question were ones that captured terrorists had been using to exchange messages to one another.  After the terrorists got through scrawling messages in them, the Korans were full of even more vicious hate than they already were in the first place.  What the hell else were we supposed to do with them???  Maybe give them to Obama for his personal library???

Meanwhile, Obama can go on apologizing to the Muslim world for how “intolerant” America is.  It’s very clearly okay for Muslim countries to execute people for daring to become Christians and it’s very clearly okay for Muslim countries to firebomb Christian schools.

Allow me to conclude by saying a little bit about the Muslim world going literally nuts because a Koran or two got burned.

Really?

I believe that the Holy Bible is the literal Word of God; I also recognize that the Bible I hold in my hand is just a book made out of paper.  If you destroy my Bible, I can go buy a new one.  And the printing press that will be used to print that Bible didn’t descend from heaven.

As a caveat to what the military did, terrorists had ALREADY defiled the Korans by writing in them in their own hand; and something that has already been defiled isn’t very “sacred” any more.  And an apt analogy is an American flag: those who love it will burn it if it touches the ground.

This is nothing more but an example of the fact that Islam represents a deeply flawed seventh century view of the world.

That said, I can’t help but think of Barack Obama respecting the Muslim world for their deeply flawed theology and apologizing - EVEN AFTER MUSLIMS MURDERED TWO SOLDIERS UNDER HIS COMMAND - but pissing on Catholic theology that is every bit as ancient.  Because Obama demonstrated outright naked contempt for Catholic theology regarding birth control, abortion causing drugs and sterilization just damned a week ago.  That abject hypocrisy on the part of a self-righteous weasel like Obama leaves me absolutely furious.

Even when Obama is “respecting religion,” he is incredibly disrespectful in deciding that homicidal Islam must be “respected” but peaceful Catholocism is something to be despised.

I’d actually like to apologize to the world for our president of “God damn America.”

And by now even Muslims know that Barack Obama is nothing but an untrustworthy rat bastard little weasel.

Note To The Party That Is Pathologically Incapable Of Comprehending Simple Reality: High Tax Rates ‘Failing To Boost Revenues’

February 24, 2012

Somewhere in heaven, Warren Harding and Andrew Mellon are laughing themselves into tears over how pathologically stupid liberals are. 

Keep in mind, for most of our nation’s history we didn’t even HAVE federal income taxes.  Harding and Mellon were the first pair to try lowering tax rates in the belief that rewarding success and investment would stimulate more success and investment – as opposed to the liberal thinking that if you just keep punishing the producers, they will surely produce more.  The bottom line is that Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues every single time we have ever done it.  And the bottom line is that every single time we have allowed liberals to try their Marxist class warfare punish the success of the rich meme, it has backfired.

The federalist papers called the states the laboratories for democracy; the idea was that the states under a relatively weak federal government could try different things; and to the degree those attempts worked or failed, people could vote with their feet.

The only thing that keeps democracy from working, in the federalist sense, is a federal government that usurps power.  Which is of course what we’ve got such that failing states get propped up while successful ones get undermined.

Still, look at what has happened in states like Maryland or New York or California and realize that high-tax liberalism has failed over and over again.  But Democrats are determined to remain stupid.

The quintessential example of this determination to remain pathologically stupid and to ignore reality whenever it gets in the way of liberalism is the infamous yacht tax that taxed the purchase of luxury items.  A central tenet of economic liberalism is that rich people are incapable of changing their behavior, such that Democrats can raise their taxes by a given percentage and thus obtain that same given percentage in higher revenue.  So they imposed a tax on luxury items such as yachts that only rich people tend to buy, figuring that they would thereby increase revenues and punish the rich at the same time.  But guess what happened?  Rich people quit buying those yachts; Democrats gutted entire industries.  And the only people were hurt were the small businesses that built and maintained yachts and other luxury items and the employees who worked in those industries who lost their jobs.

Democrats keep making the exact same mistake over and over and over again.

Democrats cannot learn; to put it in theological terms, they despise the truth and want to believe lies.  They are immune to reality.

And the states with the highest tax rates invariably also have the highest debts.  And high tax Europe – the model Obama is pursuing – is going down the drain.  Which add to further proofs that the economic policies of liberalism are the economic equivalent of a circular firing squad.

And liberals are pathologically stupid wherever you go:

50p tax rate ‘failing to boost revenues’
The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.
By Robert Winnett, and James Kirkup
10:58PM GMT 21 Feb 2012

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1 billion.

Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise.

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

“It’s true that SA revenues are a bit disappointing — it’s still early, but it looks like there’s been quite a lot of forestalling and other manoeuvring to avoid the top rate,” said the source.
 
However, another Treasury source added that the tax deadline had been extended by two days because of industrial action at HM Revenue and Customs. Therefore, it was too early to begin assessing the revenues raised from the 50p rate of tax because about 20 per cent of self-assessment tax is paid in the hours before the deadline.
 
Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, said: “My guess is that because the 50 per cent rate was flagged up in advance many taxpayers, particularly those with their own businesses, decided to extract dividends ahead of the change. It highlights the fact that high tax rates don’t always deliver high tax revenues.”
 
George Osborne, the Chancellor, is expected to receive a definitive analysis from the revenue on the 50p rate before next month’s Budget. The Liberal Democrats have insisted that it must stay because it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share.
 
David Laws, a Lib Dem MP, has also suggested reducing tax relief on pensions for top earners.
 
The prospect of higher taxation on pensions comes as savers complain that low interest rates and quantitative easing have pushed down returns on savings and pensions.
 
Charlie Bean, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, last night insisted that those people should accept the pain as the price of restoring the wider economy to health.
 
The Confederation of British Industry, in its Budget submission today, urges ministers not introduce new levies on the rich, warning that the UK “will become a less attractive location for entrepreneurs and key employees”.

Wealthy people, confronted by excessively high tax rates, have several options: they can move, they can move their money somewhere else, they can hide or shelter their money.  In our system, they can also take advantage of so many loopholes that the IRS ends up playing a losing game of Whackamole.

Meanwhile, the very premise of liberals is also deeply flawed: even assuming that high taxes would raise more in revenue – which it factually does NOT do – you still have the dilemma that taking more money out of the private economy and putting more money into the pockets of government is counterproductive and frankly immoral.

Conservative principles lack in demagogic power.  They rule in actually WORKING.  As one example of that success, Texas created 38% of ALL the jobs created in America in 2010.

More Hitler Youth-Stuff In Our Public Schools: Students Got Extra Credit For ‘Volunteering’ For Obama’s Campaign

February 22, 2012

I keep calling Democrats fascists (and see this article that contains a list of fascist Obama policies).  And that is because they just won’t stop acting like FASCISTS.

I’ve written about this government school indoctrination a number of times before.  But it just doesn’t stop with these roaches.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Nevada students received extra credit for volunteering for the Obama campaign; Update: Students received class credit

Update (2/22/12): I called Loretta Harper to ask her about the program, and she said the students aren’t getting extra credit, but class credit. More at the bottom of the post.

We’ve had public schools teaching kids to literally sing President Obama’s praises, so why not take a more direct route and put those kids to work?

Loretta Harper of Las Vegas is a newly named national co-chair of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. …

Harper, 58, is a counselor at Desert Pines High School. She’s also a member of the Board of Directors of the Nevada State Educators Association.

During the 2008 Obama campaign, when he won Nevada on his way to the presidency, Harper said she got more than 100 students extra credit when they volunteered to help elect the Democrat. (Emphasis added.)No word on if Harper, who makes $74,000 a year plus benefits, plans to expand outreach “efforts” like this nationwide now that she’s a co-chair of Obama’s re-election campaign, but if you’ve got “free labor” available, why not take advantage?

Never mind that Nevada’s high school graduation rate currently sits under 45 percent, liberals have a president to elect. We all have to get our priorities straight now, people.

In case you were wondering how Nevada can nearly triple inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending in the last 50 years and get stagnant results, tidbits like this provide part of the answer.

Update (2/21/2012): Shortly after I published this post, I called Loretta Harper to ask her for more details about this. Her is what she had to say:

First, she said the kids weren’t receiving extra credit as the RJ reported, they were receiving actual class credit. Students need 7.5 “extra curricular” credits to graduate and volunteering 60 hours gets them .5 credits. (There are other ways to get these credits too.)

Second, when I asked her if students approached her about volunteering for Obama or if she suggested it, her reply was “both ways.” (Emphasis added.) So, yes, she did use her position as a school counselor to steer students into volunteering for Obama’s campaign. If this was a private school, this wouldn’t be an issue, but she works for a public school.

Third, I asked her if the same thing would hold for a student wanting to volunteer for a Republican presidential candidate, and she said it would, but no students have asked her about that.

And yes, she is planning on having students volunteer for Obama to receive class credit again this year.

Obama is like Freddie Krueger; he keeps targeting our children.

Even more frighteningly, Obama is also like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who pulled this crap too.

The Modern Democrat Party: The Party Of Kill-Your-Baby-Then-Kill-Yourself Destroyers Of Women And Children

February 22, 2012

For the record, the Democrat Party is currently responsible for the extermination of 54.6 million innocent human beings through their legalized murder of abortion.  Every single person who has ever voted Democrat has participated in the horror of abortion by voting for the people who will vote to kill more babies.  One day every Democrat will stand before a just and holy God who will demand why they pissed away human life with such abject contempt.

So it’s safe to say that Democrats hate children.

But it is less known that Democrats hate women too:

FORSYTHE and SMITH: Disclosing the abortion-suicide association
It’s time to lift the veil on hidden health risks of terminating pregnancy
By Clarke Forsythe and Mailee Smith – The Washington Times
Monday, February 20, 2012

All 11 active judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis recently heard one of the most important abortion cases in the federal courts today. The case, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, involves a South Dakota statute requiring informed consent before a woman undergoes an abortion. While many in the media have focused on the controversies surrounding President Obama’s health care law, this case actually is one of the most significant events on the life issue today.

The hearing focused on what the courts have called “the suicide advisory”: the statute’s requirement that abortion providers give patients “a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors … including … depression [and] increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”

This case is the latest example of how the lower federal courts repeatedly have tied up reasonable abortion regulations for years, preventing the regulations from taking effect, even when there is direct language from prior Supreme Court decisions supporting the purpose of the law.

The South Dakota law has been bottled up in the courts since it was enacted in 2005 and Planned Parenthood filed suit to block its implementation. In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the states have “a substantial governmental interest justifying a requirement that a woman be apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth. … It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health. … In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed. If the information the State requires to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court made it more explicit in its latest abortion case: “Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort. … Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. … The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.”

The court also reiterated that “state and federal legislatures [have been given] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.”

That gap has largely been filled. In the past decade, a growing number of international medical studies have provided important new data.

The South Dakota statute does not mention or require any statement of causation (that abortion causes suicide). Instead, the statute requires a description of the “increased risk” of suicide after abortion, and that is what the medical studies address.

Americans United for Life filed the lead amicus brief on the documented medical evidence demonstrating the association between abortion and suicide, a brief that was resubmitted at the request of the court in December. The brief was filed on behalf of Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, and National Association of Pro-Life Nurses.

Numerous peer-reviewed medical studies have found an association between abortion and suicide. Many others have found an association between induced abortion and depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. In fact, between 10 percent and 30 percent of women suffer serious, prolonged negative psychological consequences after abortion.

A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth.

A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who gave birth.

A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered.

By 2003, the data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well as depression.”

A 2005 study by Mika Gissler in the European Journal of Public Health found that abortion was associated with a six-times-higher risk for suicide compared to birth.

A 2006 study by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted than for women who delivered.

A 2010 study by Natalie P. Mota in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that “abortion was associated with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders – mood disorders … substance abuse disorders … as well as suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.”

Finally, last September, a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental trauma after abortion.

Planned Parenthood’s objections to giving this information to women are that the “experts,” such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Psychological Association (APA) officially dismiss such risks. A report by the APA in 2008, however, disregarded a number of studies finding an increased risk and chose to focus on a small number of studies that lacked comparison groups and sufficient statistical controls.

In light of these studies in peer-reviewed, international medical journals, there can be no reasonable doubt that information about the “increased risk” of suicide after abortion is “truthful, non-misleading information.”

If given proper weight, these studies amply satisfy the discretion the Supreme Court has recognized to require that women be informed about medical risks. It is time for the federal courts to get out of way of the authority of state legislatures, supported by majority public opinion and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, to ensure that women get full information about the risks of abortion.

Clarke Forsythe is senior counsel for Americans United for Life and Mailee Smith is staff attorney for AUL. They assisted in drafting AUL’s amicus brief in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds.

So go ahead, women, make Democrats happy: kill your babies and then go kill yourselves.

Why do women who have abortions come to feel so sick with guilt that eats away at their souls until they kill themselves?  Because there is nothing that more reveals the moral sickness of this world than mothers killing their babies when they should love and cherish those babies above everything else in their lives.  When I see new mothers lovingly caressing their tiny little babies I invariably get a mental image of a different mother wanting that “thing” destroyed.  That contrast between love and hate makes me sick to my guts.  And the modern Democrat Party is defined by that hatred of life.

Democrats constantly demonize Republicans as not caring about women and children.  Like these haters of humankind give a flying damn about women or children.

I am beyond sick of Democrats – the party of hate and the party of murder – constantly labelling Republicans as “demons” when they are the ones who are truly demon-possessed.

Barack Obama is a man who would coolly stand around with despicable indifference while a baby who had just been delivered alive after an abortion attempt died a slow and agonizing death of neglect.  Because that is the kind of monster he really is.

And with Democrats harboring that kind of demonic hatred of children, it is no surprise to me that they would be just as brutally indifferent to the suffering and guilt-anguished deaths-by-suicide of women.

It is long past time to get in Democrats’ faces and shout down these murderous haters of women and children.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers