Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

The Democrats’ Nuclear Option Is Treasonous. Don’t Take My Word For It – Listen To Obama And Other Democrats Blast WHAT THEY JUST DID

November 22, 2013

Today we mourn the assassination of John F. Kennedy – a conservative who believed in a) low taxes and b) a strong and in-your-face military that contrary to Democrat cowardice confronted evil - by a leftist/communist/Stalinist thug.

It is ironic that while we mourn the murder of one of our greatest presidents, we also mourn the murder of our democracy after Senate Democrats with Obama’s Stalinist approval invoked the “nuclear option” to “fundamentally transform” the American political system.

Please note that the Republicans DID NOT invoke the nuclear option when they could have done so when they faced the exact same situation from Democrats who were doing the same thing they now demonize Republicans for doing.  The Party of Lincoln stepped back from the fascist precipice that Democrats just dived over – amazingly right after they were caught in the most massive lie and the most massive socialist conspiracy ever to threaten our Republic via the ObamaCare meltdown.

A couple of quotes FROM LIBERAL SOURCES SUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Cumulatively, recent developments surrounding the rollout of Obamacare strengthen the most damaging conservative portrayals of liberalism and of big government – that on one hand government is too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too regulatory, too in your face, and on the other hand it is incompetent, bureaucratic and expropriatory.

And The Hill citing a bunch of Democrats:

“Here we are, we’re supposed to be selling this to people, and it’s all screwed up,” one chief of staff ranted. “This either gets fixed or this could be the demise of the Democratic Party.

“It’s probably the worst I’ve ever seen it,” the aide said of the recent mood on Capitol Hill. “It’s bad. It’s really bad.”

And what do Democrats do during this crisis?  They do what Hitler and Stalin did: they seize dictatorial power.  At the very moment that non-Nazis would have recognized their failure and stepped back.

So what are Nazi Democrats doing?  They are in their “Hitler-in-his-bunker” mode and they want as much damn  Nazi control as they can get.  Because only unelected “judges” that Obama can appoint thanks to their invocation of nuclear warfare in the U.S. Senate to further warp and pervert the meaning of our democracy and our Constitution can save their sorry fascist asses now.

Democrats are, for the official record, the party that BEGAN the vicious partisan warfare over judicial nominations when they invented the term “Borking” to prevent a good man from being a judge.  Now they’re furious that Republicans would dare to do what they started.  So they invoke the nuclear option – which I guarantee you they will decry when Republicans ensure that Democrat tyranny becomes the new national norm.

This is a rule that had endured for 200 years.  And Democrats have just “fundamentally transformed” America’s political system into one of pure lawlessness.  And a lawless hypocrite president endorsed it because he knows that this is his one chance to impose his agenda before the American people have a chance to vote.

Democrats are fascists.  To paraphrase Obama, they are fascists “period.”  “End of story.”  And “no one will be able to take the stink of naked fascism away from the Democrat Party, no matter what.”

We just had the White House Correspondents’ Association and 37 different news organizations decry Obama’s Stalinist propaganda and essentially scream to Obama’s promise of “transparency” that he is a naked liar.  The  American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors sent a letter to the White House that underscores the fact that they are finally becoming aware that they’ve spent the last five years as the useful idiots of a genuinely evil man.  “We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers,” the letter says.  “You are only seeing what they want you to see,” we learn.  Which is the essence of Stalinist propaganda.

[Source of below]:

In 2005, Then-Sen. Barack Obama Called For His Colleagues Considering The Nuclear Option To Think About “Protecting Free And Democratic Debate.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor Remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

Obama: “If They Choose To Change The Rules And Put An End To Democratic Debate, Then The Fighting, The Bitterness, And The Gridlock Will Only Get Worse.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

In 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.”  SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Reid, In 2005: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.” SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Click Here To Watch

Reid: “Some In This Chamber Want To Throw Out 214 Years Of Senate History In The Quest For Absolute Power. … They Think They’re Wiser Than Our Founding Fathers. I Doubt That That’s True.” SEN. HARRY REID: “For 200 years we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some procedural gimmick. It’s within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. They did it; we didn’t do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control. Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Click Here To Watch

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): “If You Cannot Get 60 Votes For A Nominee, Maybe You Should Think About Who You Are Sending To Us To Be Confirmed…” CLINTON: “So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Clinton Expressed Hope That The Senate Would Reject The Nuclear Option And “Remember Our Founders” And “Maintain The Integrity Of The U.S. Senate.” CLINTON: “And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Obama The Weak, Feckless, Incompetent President In Terms Any Child Can Understand

September 16, 2013

Any decent parent knows that there are four keys to the effective disciplining of any wayward child:

1) Maintain clear boundaries

2) Be consistent

3) Be united (mom and dad must maintain a united front before their child)

4) Impose effective punishments

If a parent cannot do these things, he, she, or they will raise a little tyrant who will ultimately become a monster.

A monster like Bashar al-Assad has turned out to be (in spite of both of Obama’s handpicked Secretaries of State’s incredibly naïve and morally idiotic assessments to the contrary).

Notice I’m not trying to denounce Obama according to some “right wing talking points.”  I’m just trying to use an approach that any halfway decent mother or father ought to recognize as being true so you can begin to see just how wildly Barack Obama has failed America.

In regards to Syria, let’s see how Obama has fared in these four things that, as I said, any CHILD should be able to understand.

1) Maintain clear boundaries.

Well, let’s see how well you’ve done there, Obama.  I remember you saying:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

And as I pointed out: YOUR “calculus,” YOUR “equation,” YOUR RED LINE.

That was fine.  Dumb to say, maybe, but fine.

But a year later, and you’re saying before a stunned and incredulous world:

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

Did you maintain clear boundaries, Obama?

Not given the fact that Syria crossed your damned red line FOURTEEN TIMES before you showed so much as a tiny hint of the balls necessary to do anything about it whatsoever – and then only because the most recent and blatant use had the world pretty much stating as a categorical fact that you looked like the weak fool that you are.

You set a clear boundary, then allowed Syria to cross it over and over and over.  You said there was a red line.  But there wasn’t one.  You said you were going to attack, and that you didn’t need Congress or the United Nations or anybody else to approve, and then you decided that hell, you were completely wrong and that you DID need Congress, the United Nations and the international community to approve when you saw that pretty much everybody on earth saw through your weakness and your fragile, trampled-on ego.  You said you were going to attack and then you tossed it like a live hand grenade to Congress because you didn’t have the balls to make a decision.  And of course that meant that there was no attack and now that there almost certainly never will be an attack.

You couldn’t have been more INCONSISTENT, Obama.  And that’s why Syria kept getting bolder and bolder and bolder while you dithered.

What was the second rule?

2) Be consistent

The first rule of parenting is to be consistent.  The way you have never been, Obama.  Such as when you demonized your predecessor George W. Bush for being some kind of rogue cowboy who didn’t go to the United Nations only to prove that you are a complete an abject hypocrite without shame, without honor and without any shred of decency or integrity first in Libya and now again in Syria.

Are you consistent, Obama?

You went from saying a) you didn’t need Congress to attack to saying that b) you DID need Congress’s authorization to attack to saying that c) you weren’t going to attack and please don’t vote because you’d lose and look stupid and weak.  You sent your Secretary of State out on a Friday to tell the world that it was urgent that we act immediately and then the very next day told the country that there was no urgency and a day, a weak, a month, whatever, it made no difference.

Let’s see how (note, NOT some right wing think tank) the über über liberal Los Angeles Times put it:

WASHINGTON — In the last two weeks, President Obama has brought the United States to the brink of another military operation, then backed off unexpectedly. He went abroad and tried to rally international partners to join his cause, but returned empty-handed. He launched one of the biggest public relations and lobbying campaigns of his presidency, then aborted the mission. He called the nation to its televisions to make the case for using force, but made the case for more diplomacy.

The White House‘s stop-and-start response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria three weeks ago could at best be described as deftly improvisational and at worst as impulsive and risky.

By either analysis, it has been the handiwork of a foreign policy team that, just months into its term, has presided over shifts in strategy, changing messages and a striking countermand from the president.

“This has been a roller coaster. And there have been enough sudden turns where you weren’t sure if the car was still attached to the rails,” said Philip J. Crowley, former State Department spokesman and now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

The ride reflects the difficult standoff with Syria over chemical weapons, a crisis with a cast of unpredictable and hostile foreign leaders and few good options. The shifting picture has left the Obama team to call “audibles,” Crowley said. “I do think that there’s a more coherent strategy than the public articulation of that strategy.”

The president and his advisors faced harsh criticism this week as they lurched from one decision to another. Many outsiders viewed the president’s last-minute move to seek congressional authorization for military strikes in Syria as naive and dicey, given his toxic relationships with many in Congress. His subsequent outreach to Capitol Hill was blasted by lawmakers as insufficient. He faced a near-certain defeat in the House.

His quick embrace of a surprise diplomatic overture from the Russians only demonstrated his desperation, some lawmakers and political observers charged. “I think it’s about a president that’s really uncomfortable being commander in chief,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), explaining the administration’s “muddle-ness.”

Let’s see how the even more über über liberal New York Times put it:

But to Mr. Obama’s detractors, including many in his own party, he has shown a certain fecklessness with his decisions first to outsource the decision to lawmakers in the face of bipartisan opposition and then to embrace a Russian diplomatic alternative that even his own advisers consider dubious. Instead of displaying decisive leadership, Mr. Obama, to these critics, has appeared reactive, defensive and profoundly challenged in standing up to a dangerous world.

Why did Obama suddenly change his mind and take this decision to Congress?  Because he’s an incredibly cynical political weasel, that’s why.  Obama thought he could pin the decision on REPUBLICANS and if they didn’t vote his way, demonize them.  The only problem was that his complete lack of leadership and his total incompetence meant that he hadn’t won over his own Democrats.  And so all of a sudden it went to Congress but Obama had nobody to blame because both parties were UNITED AGAINST HIS FECKLESS AND INCOMPETENT WEAKNESS.

Yeah, let’s cross that “consistent” thingy off your list, Obama.  Because both friend and foe alike agree that you’ve been as all-over-the-damn-board as you possibly could have been.  NOBODY knows what the hell you’re going to do – even your weak, gutless SELf – because your policy and your position shifts with every breeze of every wind.

What was third?  Oh, right:

3) Be united

Obama sent John Kerry out to tell the world that America could not wait for the United Nations report because we had to act right away.  It was hypocritical as hell for Kerry of all people to argue that, given what he’d said when Bush was president, but that’s besides the point.

Then Obama came out the very next day and said, ah, what the hell, sure we can wait.  We can wait a day, or a week, or a month, it doesn’t matter.

Here’s a great write-up on that “united front” of Obama and his Secretary of State in what may be the worst “husband and wife play” of all time:

On August 26th, 2013, at the request of the President, John Kerry made one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by a Secretary of State.   In that scathing speech against the Assad regime in Syria he said, “”Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Kerry further said. “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Then the oddest thing imaginable happened.   Just hours later President Obama made a second speech that completely undermined Kerry and made him look like a fool.   Obama took the approach that it was not that urgent and he could wait until Congress reconvened on Sept. 9th so he could present his case for a limited strike against Syria.   He would then seek their vote of approval.   I’m paraphrasing Obama, “They are the representatives for the people (of America)”   Apparently Obama was inferring that if he carried out a strike with the approval of Congress then the American people would be responsible for whatever followed because he was only doing their bidding.   Not only that, but Obama would be let off the hook for his “red line” remark that he has failed to follow through on.  He’s putting the responsibility for military action on the Congress, not him.

Following his low keyed Syrian speech, Obama left for a round of golf, which greatly accented the division between Kerry’s urgent call for military action in Syria and Obama’s, “Let’s wait for Congress to come back and we’ll discuss it” speech.

To the world, they both looked the fool, both being completely out of synch with each other!   How could Obama have approved Kerry’s speech only to let him twist in the wind hours later and then go golfing?  This is the most amazing diplomatic blunder I’ve ever witnessed in the last 40 years, even during the Carter years!

To recap, Obama put in place his red line policy.  Then Syria violated it and he did nothing.  Then he dispatched warships presumably to launch an attack of his red line policy and when they were in position… he did nothing.    Then he allowed his Secretary of Defense to make an impassioned speech calling for the necessity of immediate military action…but he still did nothing and worse, he made a request for Congress to make the decision.    Essentially he left Kerry to hang as he went to play golf.

So Obama did a really crappy job maintaining clear boundaries after his “red line” blathering.  He utterly failed to be consistent.  And there is no “united front” in this incompetent White House (I mean, Obama can’t even present a united damn front with OBAMA, let alone his top officials).

How about that fourth thing:

4) Impose effective punishments

I’ll just sum that one up in the words of Obama’s Secretary of State:

“That is exactly what we are talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

Let’s get back to the parents confronting a child who has just done something unbelievably evil: “we’re going to have to punish you, but don’t worry: it will be an “unbelievably small” punishment.

But, oh, you won’t EVER misbehave again after we finish with our “unbelievably small” punishment.

If anybody believes that Obama’s threat of an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” scared anybody into doing anything, that person is simply an idiot without the first clue.  Because “unbelievably small” is another way of saying “unbelievably ineffective.”

Yeah, all I’ll do is give you a stern look if you cross my red line.  But you mark my words, it will be such a stern look that you will never dare defy me again.

It reminds me of a line of dialogue from the movie Yellowbeard:

“Yes, and when the invaders reach the throne room, my men will rise up and dispatch all with majestic heavenly force.”

Let me assure you that the plan didn’t work out.  And neither will Obama’s equally stupid and equally arrogant plan.

Any parent who has ever spent three seconds with their own kid – let alone the snot-nosed little brats that run around like hoodlums in most any store today – knows that Barack Obama has failed America in the most fundamental way there is.

We need to understand what the boundaries are, and Obama doesn’t have a damn clue.  We need consistency and clarity, and we don’t have any.  We need to have a united front that we can rally around, and instead we get talking points that change with every wayward breeze.  And we need to know that we can trust our president to do something that will actually ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.  And we have no such confidence.

Barack Obama is a disgrace to the United States and to the presidency.  Period.

What Obama Should Do About Syria: Do Nothing – Because He Chose To Do EVERYTHING Instead

September 6, 2013

First of all, we should not bomb Syria.

There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest.  In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security.  If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.”  There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.”  No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators.  And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway.  Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way?  That’s right – the United States of America.  The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.

Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria.  What is our specific goal?  None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated.  A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing.  If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them.  The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan.  Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word.  Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home.  But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad?  Who would take over the country?  Al Qaeda, that’s who.  We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did.  Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt?  Well, he did (as I documented here):

Obama downplayed the likelihood that the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood would take over if Mubarak were taken out of the picture:

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now.  Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful.  We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.

If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here.  What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship???  That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing.  Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again?  If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.

Iran is planning “revenge attacks” against the United States if we attack Syria.  What will Obama do about those attacks that he invited?

If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them.  And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.

It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.

Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:

Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president
Associated Press
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. [...]

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. [...]

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush voices criticism

Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”

Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.

Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.

Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course.  And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.”  You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time.  It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.

Nancy Pelosi is morally insane.  There is no other way to put it.  Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Nope, complete moral idiot.

Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.

Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.

Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State.  What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster???  I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.

Please don’t be a damn lemming.

Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!).  And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be.  Nobody seriously doubts that.  Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering  the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years.  And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.

Obama’s line -

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

- is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces.  Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line.  And you specifically said:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

Your calculus.  Your equation.  YOUR RED LINE.

Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES.  The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons.  The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.

Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything.  So now “earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.

If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress.  As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action.  And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House.  And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis.  I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.

Okay.  I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.

We are playing a geo-political chess game here.  And thanks to Obama’s incoherent and frankly irrational Middle East policies that are impossible for anybody to enumerate, we are losing that game rather badly.

So what SHOULD Obama do?

He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.

No, Obama should bomb IRAN.  And blast their nuclear capability into ashes.  THAT’S what he ought to do.

Iran is Syria’s patron-state.  Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter.  Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him.  Iran has been “all in” on Syria.

If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons.  And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.

People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president.  Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”

Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.”  Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has threatened that he would send his best air defense system to both Syria AND IRAN if Obama attacks Syria.  We don’t have much time to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation, folks.  If Iran has such an air defense capability, it will be very bloody for us to attack Iran.  We’d better do it now.

And by the way, Mister president: DON’T go to Congress.  Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.”  Make it a complete surprise.  Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.

The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs - arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace.  Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit.  And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon?  Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.

The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us.  Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal.  If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters.  Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for.  And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.

We’re going to need to do this sooner or later.  Any fool ought to know that.  And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.

So how about it, Obama?  Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?

Get Your Spiritual House In Order. Because The Beast Is Coming And You Don’t Want To Be With The Huge Majority That Takes His Mark.

November 7, 2012

I write this as I hear the report from Fox News that Ohio has just been called for Obama.

Amazingly, and I would suggest incredibly insanely, the American people have decided that the status quo – Barack Obama as president, a Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in over three years, and a House of Representatives that is even more firmly under Republican control – is the path to a great and glorious future.  Part of me wants to cry, but I dare say the larger part wants to start laughing my dang head off at the sheer idiocy of the American electorate.

As I contemplate a second Obama term, a couple of quotes come to mind:

A journalist named Stephen Laurant had been jailed circa 1935 for questioning Nazism:

I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

And then one from Jewish doctor Herta Knotwolf:

“So many worship him as their savior, their redeemer from unbearable poverty.  Many are filled with some have worry, but all are united in the words, ‘Now things will change.”

Ah, yes, hope and change.

I wonder how that worked out for old Herta.  Because things very certainly DID change.  I mean, she was certainly spot on about that part, right?

This isn’t about intelligence; it’s about moral intelligence.  In the 1930s when the German people were busy electing the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler to power, they were the most educated, scientific and literate people on the face of the earth.  Versus the people of the United States, who frankly have never been more stupid in their nation’s entire history.

There simply comes a point in the life of every nation and even every civilization where there is an overwhelming desire to commit suicide and the people give in to that desire.  And those peoples may not have thought that was what they were doing when they made the fatal decisions that resulted in their destruction, but suicide is precisely what they ultimately chose.

And it’s what the United States of America just decided to do.

Our real national debt is now already trillions of dollars beyond the $222 trillion that it was reported as being about three months ago.

Is that $222 trillion number new to you?  Here’s an article for you:

Blink! U.S. Debt Just Grew by $11 Trillion
By Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns Aug 8, 2012 3:30 PM PT

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

Some question whether “official” and “unofficial” spending commitments can be added together. But calling particular obligations “official” doesn’t make them economically more important. Indeed, the government would sooner renege on Chinese holding U.S. Treasuries than on Americans collecting Social Security, especially because the U.S. can print money and service its bonds with watered-down dollars.

For its part, economic theory sees through labels and views a country’s official debt for what it is — a linguistic construct devoid of real economic content. In contrast, the fiscal gap is theoretically well-defined and invariant to the choice of labels. Each labeling choice changes the mix of obligations between official and unofficial, but leaves the total unchanged.

Dangerous Growth

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

So, based on that actual debt increasing by $11 trillion in one year and three full months passing since the announcement of said debt, that figure is now $222 trillion plus an additional $2.75 trillion.  So please don’t stare at the zeros as they whiz by or your eyeballs will pop out and it is no easy job trying to stick them back into your skull.

And with an Obama who has increased the “official” national debt by sixty percent in only four years, along with a Democrat Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in well over three years (it’s been 1,259 days since Harry Reid’s Senate passed a budget back on April 23 of 2009), and a Republican-controlled House that has already shown they will not abandon their agenda or their constituents, well, that’s your team who will take on looming disaster.

We just elected our own destruction.  Taxmaggedom is an example of this dilemma we just voted to perpetuate: they’ll probably be able to kick the can of economic calamity down the road for another few months, but that calamity will continue to hang over our heads like a shrapnel-loaded bomb waiting to blow up in our national face.

I know many of you love suspense, but what’s going to happen is “disaster” will be wearing Harlem Globetrotter uniforms and coming from every direction while Team Obama will be dressed in Washington Generals uniforms.  And by the end of the game, Disaster will have made America look incredibly stupid.

We’re a hopelessly fractured nation under Obama.  And just to try to describe that in election night terms, Obama will be the first president in history to be reelected by a smaller electoral college majority than he was elected with when he first became president, and as I write this Obama is actually over two-hundred thousand votes behind in the popular vote.  Not that it will matter to Obama, who will view his victory as a mandate.

Click here if you would like to see what a “mandate” actually looks like.

And that division and bitterness and inability to solve any of our crises - which was worse than it has EVER been these last four years under Obama – will get worse.  I promise you.  And that is because we, like the locusts, have no leader; rather, we have a demagogue who masquerades as a leader.  He is capable only of blaming others while refusing to accept any responsibility for pretty much anything.  We’re going to be paying dearly for that.

I don’t know how to tell you this, America.  You deserve to suffer for your stupidity.  And you’re going to get what you deserve.  Because this is still God damn America, full speed ahead to hell.

By the time Barack Hussein Obama leaves office in 2016, America will be the proverbial headless chicken.  We might still be technically on our feet, but we’re going to be dead.  Unless you’re reaching into your pocket as we speak to pay that $224.75 trillion our country owes, that is.  Anyone?  Is that crickets I hear?

We are a nation that cannot even POSSIBLY begin to come together to solve our problems.  And the reelection of the most partisan and most divisive president to ever lead America is all you need to know to realize that the United States of America will NEVER be able to come together.  Until Antichrist comes along to sweep the same fools off their feet who were swept off their feet by Obama.

How does Antichrist come to power?  Revelation chapter six describes the scenario: a complete global economic collapse, wars on top of wars as nation and ethnic group fight nation and ethnic group to the death over resources and grudges, famine and mass death will characterize the world that Antichrist will ride to save on his white horse.

I look at that $224.75 trillion debt, I look at a European failed experiment in socialism that is teetering on the brink of collapse, and I feel in my gut that Revelation 6 isn’t very far away from the real world.

Antichrist will literally be worshiped by the entire world.  Why?  Because he will appear to have all the answers, and people will look at what the world had been like before the beast came along to save them, and behold the vision that the Antichrist shows them, and literally the entire world will belong to this coming tyrant.

The interesting thing is that absolutely everything we know about this coming Antichrist screams “big government.”  The Antichrist will be the ultimate big government socialist.  Period.   If you are a typical liberal who admires the United Nations, well, your future object of worship will literally BE the United Nations.  The entire planet will rally behind this man.  If you think that the government ought to have a stronger hand in the economy, worry no more: because the government of the Antichrist will have complete control over anything that has anything whatsoever to do with the economy.

Oh, Obama is going to fail something fierce, but you Democrats can already breathe a future sigh of relief right now: because the Antichrist you will soon be worshiping will fulfill your wildest dreams.

The Antichrist will also be the quintessential politician.

The Book of Daniel applies the term “wisdom” to both Daniel and the coming Antichrist.  Daniel was given wisdom to understand riddles and unravel them; Antichrist will have the wisdom to understand riddles and therefore tie the truth up in knots such that no human being will be able to penetrate his facade of lies and deceit.

He’s coming.  And he’s going to be here very soon.  And if you haven’t already made your decision for Jesus Christ, you will fall prey to the beast’s wisdom and you will worship him and you will take his mark.

Are you dismayed over the election last night?

Don’t be.  Read this:

An old missionary couple had been working in Africa for years and were  returning to New York to retire. They had no pension; their health was  broken; they were defeated, discouraged, and afraid. They discovered  they were booked on the same ship as President Teddy Roosevelt, who was  returning from one of his big-game hunting expeditions.

No one paid any attention to them. They watched the fanfare that  accompanied the President’s entourage, with passengers trying to catch a  glimpse of the great man. As the ship moved across the ocean, the old  missionary said to his wife, “Something is wrong.” “Why should we have  given our lives in faithful service for God in Africa all these many  years and have no one care a thing about us? Here this man comes back  from a hunting trip and everybody makes much over him, but nobody gives  two hoots about us.”

“Dear, you shouldn’t feel that way”, his wife said. He replied “I can’t  help it; it doesn’t seem right.”

When the ship docked in New York, a band was waiting to greet the  President. The mayor and other dignitaries were there. The papers were  full of the President’s arrival. No one noticed this missionary couple.  They slipped off the ship and found a cheap flat on the East Side,  hoping the next day to see what they could do to make a living in the  city.

That night the man’s spirit broke. He said to his wife, “I can’t take  this; God is not treating us fairly”. His wife replied, “Why don’t you  go in the bedroom and tell that to the Lord?”

A short time later he came out from the bedroom, but now his face was  completely different. His wife asked, “Dear, what happened?” “The Lord  settled it with me”, he said. “I told Him how bitter I was that the  President should receive this tremendous homecoming, when no one met us  as we returned home. And when I finished, it seemed as though the Lord  put His hand on my shoulder and simply said;

“But you’re not home yet.”

Author Unknown

America isn’t your home.

America has been hijacked by people who are determined to worship the beast and to force the country to worship the beast with them.

It’s sad, of course.  There’s no question it’s sad.  And you might feel sick, broken, defeated, discouraged and afraid.

But this isn’t your home.

And the same God who forewarned us about the world that would worship Antichrist also told us about a wonderful eternity that awaits all those who have placed their trust not in human government but in the Lamb of God.

If you still feel discouraged, go to your Bible and cheat: turn to the last page of Revelation to see who wins.

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

November 1, 2012

Allow me to introduce this story by citing the words of one of the few honest journalists left in the “profession”:

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.

Smoking gun.  This story amounts to a HUGE smoking gun.  Liberals looked and looked for evidence that George Bush knew or should have known about the original 9/11 attack but did nothing to prevent it.  They never found it because it never existed; and the fact is that Osama bin Laden declared America a “weak … paper tiger” and vowed to attack America as a result of Bill Clinton’s policies and COMPLETELY under Clinton’s watch, planned the 9/11 attack entirely under Clinton’s watch,brought in all the terrorists who attacked us entirely under Clinton’s watch, financed the operation entirely under Clinton’s watch, and completed virtually ALL of the necessary training for the attack under Bill Clinton’s watch.  It was never anything but vile to blame the attack on George Bush – whose only crime was being blindsided by the extent of the failure of the Clinton national security shambles that he left behind for Bush to inherit.

But we now have the same smoking gun proving that Obama either knew or should have known about this NEW 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on United States soil and that resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador since 1979: 

Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack’
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
 
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
 
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
 
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
 
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
 
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
 
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
 
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
 
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
 
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
 
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
 
“An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi,” Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. “Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

FactCheck.org – normally a left-leaning organization – has a devastating timeline to document just how incoherent and dishonest the Obama administration has been regarding this attack almost from the moment it happened until the present.

We now know that Obama had THREE WEEKS OF SPECIFIC WARNING ABOUT AL QAEDA ATTACKING THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA AND HE DID NOTHING.

We now know that the two former SEALs who laid down their lives did so by refusing the Obama administration’s orders to stand down because they lived – and the United States had until Obama always lived by – the doctrine that when Americans are under fire you go in and you save them from the enemy.

We now know that the US Ambassador and his staff in Libya were PLEADING for more security and that not only did Obama refuse to GIVE them more security but he actually CUT the insufficient security that they had prior to the attack (see also here).

And we now know that the reason that Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with was because of his role in what would clearly amount to a bigger scandal than the Iran-Contra affair if the media were honest; because we have details of secret White House arms transfers THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

We most certainly know that there was NO “spontaneous protest” prior to the well-coordinated and preplanned terrorist attack that featured multiple phases/waves as well as both direct AND indirect fire, and that all Obama did for the first three full weeks PLUS was offer nothing but deceitful fabrications intended to stave off scrutiny until AFTER Obama was elected and there was no longer any way to throw his weasel ass out of office.

We now know that Obama had to have been briefed on the deteriorating conditions and potential 9/11 attacks at least the day before the attack.  And given that we KNOW that Obama knew this, and given that we KNOW that Obama repeatedly brought up “spontaneous protests” and “the video” when he KNEW FOR A FACT that he was lying to the American people and to the entire world.  There is NO question that Obama fabricated a linkage to a protest that never even happened and to a video that had nothing to do with the attack.  And he cynically and deceitfully lied and slandered our First Amendment freedoms to give himself political cover to try to conceal his massive failure to govern and to lead.  And what has been unfolding ever since was an incompetent cover-up to try to obfuscate incompetent presidential leadership.

And yes, now we know that the Obama administration had three weeks of credible and specific warning describing exactly who was going to attack the consulate and exactly how they were going to do it.  And Obama decided to go campaign instead of dealing with it both before and immediately after the disaster.

Obama has now thoroughly demonstrated that he will NOT come clean with the facts.  Because he knows the American people would vote him out if they knew just how terribly and despicably he had failed.

The best way to judge Obama is to judge him by his own party’s attacks against George W. Bush.  And Obama fails wildly by that metric in a way that Bush did not.

After 230 ‘Security Incidents’ In Libya, An Ambassador About To Be Murdered BEGGING For Security, And That Security CUT, The Truth Is Coming Out

October 10, 2012

Obama’s “It was the video’s fault” lie may now officially rest in hell where the lie originated in the first place.  Contrary to the Obama administration’s lie that was repeatedly stated at the very top levels of his administration, THERE WAS NO “SPONTANEOUS UPRISING.”  THERE WERE NO CROWDS.  THERE WAS NO PROTEST.  And THE COMPOUND WAS QUIET UNTIL INTERRUPTED BY THE LOUD NOISES OF THE ATTACK ITSELF.  It was a lie from the devil all along.

Let’s look at a transcript posted by the Associated Press:

New details of Sept. 11 consulate attack in Libya
By Bradley Klapper, The Associated Press
October 9, 2012
Updated: 8:10 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) Senior State Department officials provided a more detailed picture Tuesday of the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. A look at how they say the attack took place:

Sept. 10-11, 2012

Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya’s government to provide added security.

Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.

It’s not enough to say that Obama administration officials such as Susan Rice, Jay Carney and yes, even Hillary Clinton, were incompetent.  They lied to the American people, and they lied over and over again.  And for what it’s worth, I do not believe that Barack Hussein Obama has YET publicly acknowledged that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans was a TERRORIST attack.  And when Obama gave his speech at the United Nations fully TWO WEEKS after the attack, he not only refused to use the word “terrorist,” but AGAIN deceitfully referred to the stupid video.  And referred to it SIX TIMES in his damn speech.

Which is to say it is now a documented fact that the Obama administration from Obama on down lied to the American people.  And are now trying to cover up their lies.

We now know that Ambassador Chris Stevens was begging for more security.  We know that Ambassador Stevens’ personally recorded his fears and his recognition that he needed more security in his personal journal (that was found after his murder):

The channel said in the story online that it took “newsworthy tips” from Stevens’ diary and confirmed them with other sources. Citing an unidentified source “familiar with Stevens’ thinking,” CNN said that the ambassador was concerned about security threats in Benghazi and a “rise in Islamic extremism.” [...]

The public has a right to know what CNN learned from “multiple sources” about fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack, the channel said, “which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn’t do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel.” [...]

The diary was first mentioned on-air Friday by Anderson Cooper, following previous CNN reports that Stevens feared he was on an “al Qaeda hit list” but did not mention the journal. Cooper said that some of the information in the reports was based on Stevens’ personal journal, which he said CNN came across in its reporting.

In its online story, CNN said it found the journal on the “floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.”

We now know that Consulate officials in Benghazi made REPEATED requests for more security that were ignored (see also here):

An investigation by a House committee into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 found 13 instances of alarming events in the months before the attack that killed four Americans, prompting diplomats to make repeated requests for heightened security.

Those incidents were outlined in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, with a request that the State Dept. reveal whether or not it was aware of these attacks and explain what steps were taken to beef up security.

We now know also know that Obama himself was AWARE that Stevens’ requests for more security had been denied BY his administration:

The letter to Secretary Clinton states that, “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.” They added, “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

There is the smoking gun and the reason for the coverup, the Obama White House knew Ambassador Stevens had been DENIED requests of additional security due to multiple smaller attacks on the consulate. The public finding out this information would be devastating to Obama’s reelection bid, so they conjured up the “spontaneous protest from the video” ruse knowing the corrupt media would go along with their version of the tragedy. This is why Democrat Pat Caddell stated last week ”the media is the enemy of the American people,” if we had a real press they would have investigated Benghazi and reported truth, not just dictated everything Jay Carney said as fact.

We know that not only did Obama NOT give Ambassador Chris Stevens more security as he had repeatedly asked for, but that he actually CUT Steven’s security prior to the attack on the compound which led to his murder and to the murders of three other Americans:

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.” “They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

And we know that the security team commander whom Obama ordered to abandon Ambassador Chris Stevens prior to his murder has testified that Ambassador Stevens wanted his team to stay.

Are you getting this?  Do you understand how truly despicable and reckless Barack Hussein Obama’s conduct was?

There’s more.  Obama did all of this in spite of crystal clear warnings about what was very likely to happen.

Two-hundred and thirty documented security incidents in Libya.  That’s right: 230 documented security incidents prior to Obama pulling out the security team that could have saved Ambassador Stevens’ and the other Americans lives:

Records show calls for more protection in Libya, 230 ‘security incidents’ before strike
Published October 09, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. mission in Libya recorded 230 “security incidents” over a one-year  period between 2011 and 2012, according to a State Department document that  provides the most expansive view yet of the concerns on the ground in the run-up  to the deadly Sept. 11 consulate attack.

The document was obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform  Committee, which is preparing to hold a high-profile hearing on Wednesday  featuring security officers who served in Libya.

One of them, Eric Nordstrom, claimed in an Oct. 1 email — obtained by Fox  News — that he had argued for additional security, citing the “number of  incidents that targeted diplomatic missions.”

However, Nordstrom suggested the U.S. government was eager to give the  impression that Libya was safer than it was and declined.

“These incidents paint a clear picture that the environment in Libya was  fragile at best and could degrade quickly,” he wrote. “Certainly, not an  environment where post should be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce  security resources in accordance with an artificial time table.”

The account is similar to that of Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a  Special Forces security team who has also agreed to testify. He has given  similar accounts in the media of being rebuffed in calling for more  security.

The testimony is sure to fuel the firestorm on Capitol Hill over the  administration’s handling of the attack — both in terms of security before the  attack and the public explanation afterward of what happened.

Pushed on whether security was pulled back before the Sept. 11 strike, State  Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to get into specifics.

“I’m not going to go into all of these kinds of timeline details as to what  we had when and where,” she said.

Nuland said that in advance of the Sept. 11 anniversary, the department  evaluated the “threat stream” and determined “security at Benghazi was  appropriate for what we knew.”

The document on the 230 incidents, which spans June 2011 to July 2012, goes  well beyond high-profile attacks, like the attempted assassination of the  British ambassador in June, to include gunfights, the murder of foreign  nationals and an explosives attack on the Benghazi consulate on June  6.

In one June 26 attack, the Tunisian consulate was targeted by a “crude IED,”  though no one was injured, the report said. A border security officer was  assassinated in Benghazi on July 4. The report detailed a string of kidnappings  later that month.

A “general assessment” at the end of the document then states: “The risk of  U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens, and businesspersons encountering  an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is  HIGH.”

A senior Republican with the House oversight committee says there’s a pattern  — one where help was requested by teams in Libya and consistently  denied.

“It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State  Department,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who visited Libya over the  weekend.

“They wanted the appearance of … ‘normalization’ there in Libya,” he said.  “And building up of an infrastructure, putting up barbed wire on our …  facility would lead to the wrong impression.”

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats were accusing Republicans of  exploiting the situation for political purposes.

A memo by Democrats on the oversight committee reportedly accused Republican  leaders of keeping them largely out of the loop on “unverified allegations,” as  well as the fact-finding trip.

One Democratic aide also stressed “GOP cuts in spending for embassy security”  ahead of the attack.

Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed in the  attack.

An independent investigation launched by the State Department is under way –  it presumably will examine why the administration at first claimed the attack  was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film  despite evidence of terrorism.

A law enforcement investigation is also underway.

New details, confirmed by Fox News, show the attack on the consulate and  nearby annex used by the CIA unfolded over five hours. In addition to  rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s and assault rifles, the terrorists used gun  trucks and mortars.

After Republican Sen. Bob Corker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations  Committee who traveled to Libya, confirmed to The Washington Post that U.S.  agents were analyzing security camera video from the consulate, Attorney General  Eric Holder suggested lawmakers pull back on their public discussion of the  investigation.

Holder urged “people in Congress” to be “a little mindful of the fact that  there is an ongoing investigation and not reveal anything that might compromise  our law enforcement investigation.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

The evidence is so overwhelming that this is a lie and a cover-up that far exceeds ANYTHING that ever happened in Watergate.  Obama should not only be forced out of office, he should be criminally prosecuted just as he wanted to criminally prosecute the brave CIA officials whose “crime” was doing their duty in waterboarding three terrorists (who ultimately gave us Osama bin Laden).

Mitt Romney needs to punch Obama in the face with these facts and simply keep on punching him so that the American people may know just how utterly depraved Barack Obama is in the murder of the first United States Ambassador to be murdered since Jimmy Carter held the title of “most failed president in history.”

After Supreme Court Rules Arizona Law Immigration Checks Valid, Obama Orders Federal Government NOT To Accept Lawfully Arrested Illegal Immigrants

June 26, 2012

Barack Obama and Democrats had TWO FULL YEARS to pass legislation to legally deal with illegal immigration and the 12-20 million illegal immigrants who are “occupying” America.  Democrats not only had overwhelming control of the House of Representatives, but they even had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  It was politically inconvenient for Obama and the Democrats to lift so much as a pinky finger to deal with the issue, so Barry Hussein broke his word to the Hispanic community and left them twisting in the wind.

The above is all 100 percent true.

Obama also told Hispanic organizations that he could not simply issue an executive order to enact the dream act by dictate.  How did he put it?

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That’s right.  Obama told them that such an executive order was “not how our system works” (i.e. it would be un-American for him to issue such an order).  He said it was “not how our democracy functions” (i.e. it would be anti-democratic to issue such an order).  And he said it was “not how our Constitution is written” (i.e. it would be unconstitutional for him to issue such an order). 

And then Obama did the very thing that he said would be un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional for him to do.  So when I point out the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a fascist tyrant, I’m merely judging him by his very own criteria.

The thing about Obama is that only Obama matters to Obama.  The rest of you can burn for all he cares.  So when his election prospects started looking weak, well, it was suddenly time for Obama to pretend he gave a damn about Hispanics again. 

So the Supreme Court issues its decision yesterday on the Arizona Law.  It was kind of a wash: three components of the law were struck down, but the MAJOR provision of the law that allowed police to question those whom they reasonably suspected were illegally in the United States was maintained in a unanimous decision.  And many argue that provision that passed was the real guts of the law.

Well, as I pointed out, Barack Obama is a fascist.  He views himself like a king who is above the law, above the states, above the separation of powers and the rest of the Constitution, above the Congress and above the Supreme Court.  So what did he do?

As soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Obama ordered Homeland Security to suspend all immigration agreements with the state of Arizona:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

It amounts to a giant Obama middle finger to the Supreme Court and to the state of Arizona and every legal citizen of that state.

All Obama gives a flying damn about is demagoguing this issue to temporarily grab the Hispanic vote.  After that, he’ll screw them the moment it is to his advantage to do so.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio had been working to do the very thing that Obama imposed illegally by tyrannical dictate.  Had Senator Rubio been allowed to advance his legislation, Hispanics could have had their status by permanent legally enacted process:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s surprise decision to halt U.S. deportations of young illegal immigrants has all but killed a Republican effort to fashion legislation that could have won political points with Hispanic voters in November’s elections.

Republican Senators, including Marco Rubio, had been working behind the scenes for months on a bill that would have allowed some children of illegal immigrants a chance to stay in the United States legally while pursuing college or military careers.

But Obama’s announcement has effectively made the Rubio plan moot, further complicating Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s search for an immigration policy.

CNN contributor Ruben Navarrette wrote an article with the title “GOP version of DREAM Act holds promise.”  He pointed out that:

San Diego (CNN) — You may have heard that a group of Republicans in Congress — including GOP rock star and possible vice presidential pick Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — are getting ready to introduce their version of the DREAM Act.You also may have heard that Democratic lawmakers and liberal advocacy groups despise the Republican alternative and derisively label it “DREAM Act Lite.”

As someone who has written about immigration for more than 20 years and hammered Democrats and Republicans (including Rubio) when appropriate, I call the GOP approach to the DREAM Act something else: A common sense solution. It could break a stalemate and improve millions of lives. And it could only be opposed for ugly partisan reasons.

Marco Rubio pointed out n an interview I saw on Fox News that his work had been demonized by Democrats – as echoed by Navarrette above.  And Rubio noted that when Obama imposed by executive tyranny basically the VERY SAME THING that Rubio’s legislation would have done legally and legislatively according to the Constitution, suddenly the same thing they’d demonized when it was a Republican’s idea was wonderful.

Democrats are that dishonest and that hypocritical.

Here’s what Obama pulled off - he stopped the legislative process to help Hispanics dead in its tracks just so he could exploit them:

No surprise here, as killing Sen. Marco Rubio’s proposed DREAM Act was exactly the point of Obama’s announcement on Friday. But it certainly is interesting that the same guy who took to the pages of Time today to urge Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform is the same guy who has been frantically working behind the scenes to spike Rubio’s legislation. Mission accomplished:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Monday that President Barack Obama’s move last week to block deportations for some young illegal immigrants in the U.S. has likely derailed his own similar efforts, at least until after the election.

“People are going to say to me, ‘Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election,’” Sen. Rubio said in an interview. “And it is going to be hard to argue against that.”

[...]

“The game changer here was Marco Rubio,’’ said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, one of a number of groups that has been pushing the White House on reform. “He was a legitimate conservative trying to find a solution to the broken immigration system … and the administration realized they had to do something.’’

So here’s Republicans trying to work within the system to do something that dishonest, lying Democrat demagogues dishonestly say Republicans won’t do.  And what happens?  The Fascist-in-Chief Obama stabs Marco Rubio in the back and kills an effort to help Hispanic kids in order to politically benefit in the short-term even though it is going to cost Hispanics in the longer term.  Nothing is going to happen now, thanks to Obama.

And just in case you don’t yet understand what a stinking pile of quivering slime Obama truly is, let’s go back to the way Obama just abandoned the entire state of Arizona and made sure that their illegal immigration crisis would fester and rot.  Arizona Senator John McCain, who at least has the virtue of being a grown-up, notes that Obama’s response is nothing short of the action of a spoiled child.  This is the condition Arizona is now in thanks to Obama: their own state is no longer theirs because now it belongs to Mexican drug cartel killers:

In Obama’s God Damn America, Armed Illegals Stalk U.S. Border Patrol – With Weapons Supplied By The Obama Administration.

If that isn’t enough, this state that is so overwhelmed by illegal immigration BY MURDERING DRUG GANGS that the federal government is literally posting sings that say, “This part of the state is simply off limits to American citiziens because Barack Obama benefits politically from refusing to enforce the law,” there’s an additional level of chutzpah.  The same day that the Supreme Court ruled in a way Obama didn’t like that gave Arizona the right to pursue illegal immigrants as they enter the Arizona police system, the same day Obama refused to allow Arizona to receive to have any information by ICE or Homeland Security to check the status of illegal immigrants, Obama essentially put a warrant out on any police officer in Arizona who in any way, shape or form tried to enforce the law that the Supreme Court just found constitutional.  Obama yesterday implemented a hotline for any illegal immigrant to complain about the way a police officer dared to question him/her.

Even Obama’s own city of Chicago is suffering terribly due to Obama’s policies.  Not that he gives a damn: he knows that liberals will continue to vote for him no matter what.

It is also now known to be a fact that inventive security experts have come up with an inexpensive way to guarantee border security – but Obama doesn’t WANT border security.  Obama literally WANTS more illegal immigration.

Obama will sell this nation out if it will help him get the Hispanic vote and get re-elected.

It is beyond amazing how genuinely evil this turd Obama truly is.

Barack Obama has this in common with Hitler: he has absolutely no decency whatsoever and ultimately every single group who keeps fighting for him is going to ultimately be betrayed.

Obama The Fascist Bringing America Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism

April 11, 2012

According to the American Constitution, power is shared by three separate branches of government that have different functions and were by design intended to frustrate one another’s ambitions.

But we now have a president who refuses to accept the constitutional mandate of the other two branches; Obama wants to be America’s first “Dear Leader.”

Consider that recently Barack Obama was demonizing Congress and literally saying, “I’ll impose my will on America without you.”

The following is not from some “right-wing ‘pseudo’ news source”; it is from the reliably leftist Atlantic:

Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress
By Fawn Johnson
Sep 1 2011, 8:56 AM ET306
The president has asked federal agencies to find solutions on their own. His message to lawmakers: We can do this without you.

President Obama is either fed up with Congress or he’s testing his own administration’s mettle. Or both.
 
On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program–this time a jobs and infrastructure effort–that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a “Plan B” updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we’ll do it for you.

On all sorts of fronts, Obama has blatantly ignored the Constitution as he has made one power grab after another.  The Foundry provides one example:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

According to the New York Times:

HONOLULU — President Obama is heading into his re-election campaign with plans to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility toward his agenda.

[...]

However the White House chooses to frame Mr. Obama’s strategy, it amounts to a wholesale makeover of the young senator who won the presidency in 2008 by promising to change the culture of Washington, rise above the partisan fray and seek compromises.

After three years in office, Mr. Obama is gambling on a go-it-alone approach. In the coming weeks, he will further showcase measures he is taking on his own to revive the economy, Mr. Earnest said, declining to give details.

I can’t go on without pointing out that what Obama is doing is hardly merely a “wholesale makeover”; it is a fundamental lie and betrayal of the American people in the form of a willfully broken “core promise” Obama made to them.  Barack  Obama is a liar.  He is a genuinely evil man.  He despises this nation and the more sacred the institution, the more he despises it.

The Associated Press points to the incredibly cynical Obama strategy and the depraved and self-centered partisan motivation behind it:

Posted: 11:01 AM Dec 31, 2011
Obama to press ahead without Congress
The Associated Press

President Barack Obama is entering his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers take little action in 2012.

Devoid of any major policy pushes, much of the year will instead be focused on the biggest goal of all: winning a second term.

Obama has also recently ignored the Constitution and the Senate by making a NON-recess “recess appointment.”

That’s one branch of Congress the President of the United States no longer needs and feels free to demonize, ignore and usurp whenever it benefits him politically.

Here’s the other: The Supreme Court of the United States.

You should be familiar with Obama’s attitude toward the SCOTUS because it is still so fresh in the news.  But here are a few of my articles on the subject:

White House Explains Obama’s Fascist Supreme Court Gaffe: You’re Just Too Dumb To Understand Obama’s Brilliant Legal Mind

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

Fascist-In-Chief Obama Demonizes Supreme Court YET AGAIN (‘WAAAAH! They Won’t Let Me Have My ObamaCare! They’re Traitors To My Regime!!!’)

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Obama literally tried to argue that the Supreme Court of the United States did not have the authority to overturn a law passed by a “strong majority of Congress” (how about the slimmest possible majority rammed through in the dead of night with no one even having the opportunity to read the damn bill?) in spite of the obvious historical fact that the Supreme Court has had that declared authority since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.  Obama tried to argue such an overturn would be “unprecedented” in spite of the glaring historical fact that not only has the SCOTUS overturned MANY laws passed by Congress, but has even overturned two laws that used the “commerce clause” as their justification for unconstitutional mandates since 1999.  And on top of that, Obama argued that ObamaCare shouldn’t be overturned whether it is unconstitutional or not because it does a good thing and the ends ought to justify the means.  Which is to say that the president was demonizing the Supreme Court for “judicial activism” even as he demands that the SCOTUS practice judicial activism.

With that preamble that serves to point out that everything that is cited in the following article is simply factually true, here it is:

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted 04/05/2012 06:34 PM ET

Power: Given the president’s end-runs around Congress, his shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts, a second term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect.
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the question on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president’s policies and actions if left unchecked.
 
“I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism,” Napolitano opined. “A few months ago he was saying, ‘The Congress doesn’t count, the Congress doesn’t mean anything, I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.’
 
“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”
 
Some would consider this borderline hyperbole. But this is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented” review of ObamaCare.
 
As the Department of Justice turned in its homework assignment on the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws, it was a reminder that this is an administration that’s already been found in contempt of court by a federal judge.
 
In February of last year, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.
 
Judge Feldman was not amused. “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in his ruling. “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium … provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt.”

As for Congress, we see the same dismissive tone. “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” Obama said in February at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden off to the side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
 
When cap-and-trade failed to make it through Congress — a Congress that had specifically denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act — the Obama administration, with the support of the usual suspects in the media, went ahead, unleashing the EPA to make war on coal and other fossil fuels.
 
In April 2009, Time Magazine ran a piece titled, “EPA’S CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’ Head.” The New York Times editorialized that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And that’s what the administration has been doing.
 
The whole thrust has been the acquisition of power by the federal government centered on the White House. That is the theme of ObamaCare, which is not about health care but about making people as dependent on government benevolence, if we can use that word, as possible.
 
Those who stand in the way, whether it be the Supreme Court, Congress or institutions such as the Catholic Church, are to be either ignored when possible, or intimidated and bullied into silence and acquiescence in the proud tradition of President Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky.
 
What is at stake here is freedom and whether we shall be governed by a document that begins with “we the people” or whether we shall be ruled, in totalitarian fashion, by a bill that says “the secretary shall determine” what our rights and freedoms are.

The Constitution and the American way of life is teetering on the edge of a cliff.  And Barack Hussein is doing everything he can to push it over and finish the job of “fundamentally transforming America.”

Consider just how godawful Obama’s ObamaCare abuse of power truly is:

Another $17 trillion surprise found in Obamacare
By Neil Munro – The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller – Fri, Mar 30, 2012.

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 Obamacare law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.
 
“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Ala. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican’s budget chief in the Senate.
 
“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.
 
The hidden shortfall between new Obamacare spending and new Obamacare taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court judges grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the constitution’s limits on government activity. If the judges don’t strike down the law, Obamacare will force taxpayers find another $17 trillion to pay for Obamacare’s spending.
 
The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years.
 
The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term.
 
That $82 billion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.
 
The $82 trillion funding gap is equal to 28 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.
 
The new $17 trillion funding gap is five times the current federal budget.
 
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 65 years. Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
 
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
 
The extra $17 billion gap was discovered by applying standard CMMS estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
 
For example, Session’s examination of Obamacare’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
 
The same review also showed the Obamacare law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
 
“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.
 
“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”

Remember what Nancy Pelosi infamously said as Speaker of the House of Representatives?  “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Fascists frankly don’t give a damn about anything but naked power-grabs.

Either Obama wins and America dies or America wins and Obama is removed from office.  It’s that simple.

I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” a full year ago.  And he has done so many vile and un-American things in his God damn America since then it is unreal.

Obama’s And Democrats’ February Budget Deficit Of $229 Billion Is Almost FIFTY PERCENT MORE Than Last GOP Congress’ ENTIRE YEAR’S Deficit Under Bush

March 9, 2012

As insane as that sounds, it is true.  Democrats under Barack Obama managed to pull off a one-month deficit of $229 billion.  That is 41.4 percent higher than the ENTIRE YEARS’ BUDGET DEFICIT of $162 billion passed by the last Republican Congress under George W. Bush for fiscal year 2007.

From the Washington Times:

Govt. sets record deficit in February
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 8, 2012

The federal government recorded its worst monthly deficit in history in February, according to a preliminary report Wednesday from the Congressional Budget Office that said the deficit in fiscal year 2012 is already more than half a trillion dollars.

The CBO’s figures show that despite repeated efforts to trim spending, the government has borrowed 42 cents of every dollar it spent during the first five months of this fiscal year.

The nonpartisan agency projected the government will run a deficit of $229 billion in February, the highest monthly figure ever. The previous high was $223 billion a year ago, in February 2011.

It is the 41st straight month the government has run a deficit — itself a record streak that dates back to the final months of President George W. Bush’s tenure. Before now, the longest streak on record was 11 months.

For all of fiscal year 2012, which began Oct. 1, the budget analysts said the government has raised $869 billion in revenue but spent $1.5 trillion so far.

Congress and President Obama sparred for most of last year on how to cut spending, but the CBO’s figures show that spending has actually remained flat in 2012 once the timing of certain payments has been adjusted.

Mr. Obama last month released a budget that showed the government averaging $1 trillion deficits for the rest of this decade. House Republicans are working to write their own budget now, while Senate Democratic leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has said he doubts his chamber will write a budget this year.

The Democrat Party is the party of demon-possessed insanity.  That’s the only way to put it.  Let’s consider the progression as shown in a Los Angeles Times article from 2008.  For a little background, the $162 billion deficit for 2007 was the last deficit passed by a Republican Congress while George Bush was president.  The very next year, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House and Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget with a deficit of $455 billion – which for the official record was 181 percent higher than the Republicans’ last deficit.  That is very nearly THREE TIMES the deficit from a party that had spent the last eight years demonizing Republicans for their spending.

Federal deficit hits record $455 billion
The shortfall for fiscal 2008 is larger than was feared. It is likely to be a key issue in the last weeks of the campaign.
October 15, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff

WASHINGTON — Compounding terrible economic news, budget officials announced Tuesday that the federal deficit has soared to a record $455 billion, injecting new urgency into the closing days of the presidential campaign about spending in Washington, including efforts to stem the financial disaster.

The final accounting for fiscal 2008 produced a larger shortfall than had been projected, reflecting the start of federal efforts to address the economic emergency. It is certain to become a significant issue in the campaign, confronting the candidates with new questions about their growing slate of proposals for new spending and tax cuts at a time when red ink is surging.

“The reality is that the next president will be inheriting a fiscal and economic mess of historic proportions — the legacy of President Bush’s failed policies,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. “It will take years to dig our way out.”

The deficit is likely to be even bigger next year as the country copes with the worst financial crisis since the Depression.

The new figure breaks the previous record deficit of $413 billion in 2004 and more than doubles the 2007 deficit of $162 billion. It has focused new attention on government spending, coming just days after the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of digits to record the overall national debt, which passed $10 trillion.

In Congress, the record deficit is likely to intensify debate over Democrats’ efforts to pass another economic stimulus package, perhaps worth $150 billion, and over the issue of fiscal discipline.

Administration officials blamed the deficit in large part on the nation’s economic troubles, which produced lower than expected tax revenues and led to passage of an economic stimulus package that included tax rebates.

Note that “blame Bush” has been the only Democrat strategy pretty much since Bush took office.  It has now dominated Barack Obama’s entire presidency up to this point and he will NEVER take responsibility for his failed economy.

Obama rammed a stimulus through Congress in 2009 that cost not a mere $150 billion, but $862 billionObama’s “experts” assured us that if we passed this stimulus boondoggle, unemployment would never reach 8%.  It of course went to 10.4% and has NEVER got to 8% during Obama’s entire presidency.

Of course, the real unemployment rate is actually over NINETEEN PERCENT.  But Obama can keep playing with numbers to cover up that massive failure.  Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the nonpartisan director of the nonpartisan CBO testified that Obama’s policies had destroyed jobs and would continue to destroy jobs.

Do you want to know why the stimulus didn’t work?  The answer is actually pretty damn simple: BECAUSE KEYNESIAN ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAMS HAVE NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE.

And when you look around at all the countries that are doing better than the United States, the single common factor is that they didn’t pass a massive stimulus boondoggle like we did under Obama (see also here and here).

Which is why Obama’s stimulus actually RAISED unemployment.  And which is why Obama was forced to admit that he would leave unemployment higher than it was when he found it.

What’s funny is that Obama’s own damn experts admitted that Bush’s policies were better for the economy than Obama’s.  Which is probably why they were kicked out and Obama’s “economic team” has become a revolving door of incompetence since.

Oh, and by the way, the actual cost of Obama’s stimulus will actually end up being $3.27 TRILLION rather than a paltry $862 billion.  Just in case money or debt matters to you at all.

And the same Obama who admitted that his “shovel-ready stimulus wasn’t as shovel-ready as he thought” said that the only damn thing his one-track Marxist mind could think of was to double down and try ANOTHER failed stimulus boondoggle that would largely benefit his special interest just like his first one did.

And rather than do a damn thing to fix the broken economy, Obama and his Democrat fools spent over a year railroading the unconstitutional socialist takeover of our health system otherwise known as ObamaCare.  Which we keep finding out (remember when Nancy Pelosi said we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out what is inside it?) is exploding the deficit and will KEEP exploding the deficit.

Welcome to God Damn America, people.  If you like it, vote for Obama again.  By the time this useful idiot of the coming Antichrist is finished, you won’t have a country left five years from now.

As Obama Claims Republicans Ruined Economy, Consider Economy During LAST YEARS’ Martha’s Vineyard Vacation

August 19, 2011

One of the lies Obama told on his BS (because U weren’t in his Canadian-built bus, were you?) tour was that he’d fixed the economy, and then the Republicans came to power

Let’s burn that lie down right now. 

While Obama was happily hobnobbing with the super-rich at Martha’s Vineyard last August, I wrote up a list of all the things that were truly going to hell:

Obama’s having a grand old time because he doesn’t give a flying fart about the following facts that have gripped the country while he was gripping a golf club:

The mainstream media’s adjective of the day to summarize all of the above is “unexpected,” of course.

And my favorite headline while Obama was on vacation #6 (not hard give the competition) comes from Überlefty David Letterman:

Okay, scratch that: THIS is my favorite headline:

All of these things were reported as occurring during one of Obama’s four golf outings on his sixth vacation so far just this year.

I didn’t realize that last year’s post on Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation would come in handy to refute the massive Obama lies just before this year’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation.

Boy, Obama sure had the streets paved with gold last year before those nasty Republicans entered the scene, didn’t he?  Last August, you might recall, Obama had the White House, Nancy Pelosi owned the House of Representatives lock, stock and barrel and Harry Reid had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  But of course Bush was to blame for everything back then, just like Republicans are to blame for everything now.

Since Barack Obama became president, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 43%.  But blame Bush.  And Republicans, of course.

As Barack Obama leaves on vacation to hob-nob with the millionaires, the man who isn’t bothering to get economic briefings on a daily basis is ignoring a world on the verge of meltdown over fears of a U.S. meltdown.

It is amazing how utterly jammed-packed with fecal matter Democrats are.  George Bush was to blame for everything because George Bush was president; but Barack Obama being president for nearly three years means he is absolutely not to be held responsible for anything.  Republicans are to be blamed for everything now because they control the House of Representatives, but the fact that Democrats had total control of both the House of Representatives AND the Senate from 2006 until 2010 – which strangely corresponds quite well to when everything started going to hell – means they aren’t responsible for anything.  Because Bush was president, and the president is responsible unless that president happens to be Barack Obama.  And of course you hold the Republicans responsible if they control the House because you don’t hold the Democrats responsible even if they control both the House and the Senate.

One might laugh at this mindset, but it is the mindset of your mainstream media news.

I leave you with the words of former NBC News president Michael Gartner about Barack Obama:

“I think people have a fondness for him and I don’t think people blame him for anything that’s wrong in this country, unless – I think the far-right of the Republican Party does, but I don’t think the moderates do and certainly the Democrats don’t.”

When this is the representative attitude of the mainstream media, you know that America has truly surpassed Joseph Goebbels in the field of propaganda.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers