Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category

Harry Reid And Senate Democrats Invoke ‘Nuclear Option’ In Pursuit Of Their Goal To ‘Fundamentally Transform’ American Democracy

October 8, 2011

Obama said it:

After all of Obama’s stunning lies, that’s the only promise that he’s kept.  He has fundamentally transformed the United States of America.

Democrats have already destroyed the American economy and turned our once-great capitalist system into a state planned economy.  Next on their gun sights is the American democratic political system itself.

We recently had the Democrat governor from the state of North Carolina openly advocate for fascism, stating:

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

And, heck, if we don’t even need to have elections, we surely don’t need to have any of the rest of the pretenses of a democratic system, right?

Particularly when we have a president who can say to racist Hispanic group La Raza (which means “The Race”) one month:

“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.”

And then do the exact same thing he had just admitted was un-American, anti-democratic AND unconstitutional the next month.

The idea of doing things on his own – and by the Democrat Party abandoning American democracy – was apparently way too tempting for these fascists, indeed.

What else can we say but, “Yes We Can!”  We can truly poison America and everything it stands for.  And we can do it in just four short years.

Here is the new dose of outrage:

Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton – 10/06/11 09:10 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.

McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.

McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)

Reid’s move strips the minority of the power of forcing politically-charged procedural votes after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster and move to a final vote, which the Senate did on the China measure Tuesday morning, 62-38.

Reid said motions to suspend the rules after the Senate votes to end debate — motions which do not need unanimous consent — are tantamount to a renewed filibuster after a cloture vote.

“The Republican Senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments,” Reid argued before springing his move.

Reid said Republicans could force an “endless vote-a-rama” after the Senate has voted to move to final passage.

He said this contradicts the rule the Senate adopted 32 years ago.

“This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments,” Reid said.

Reid appealed a ruling from the chair that McConnell did not need unanimous consent to force a vote on his motion.

Let’s look at some of Obama’s rules before he became dictator and abandon all rules and all principle:

  • My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?“–CBS-TV election night interview, Nov. 2, 2004
  • You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One–I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.”–interview with the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Oct. 9, 2007

And the conclusion:

[Obama] “explained almost as well as we can why what he is doing now–pushing Congress to “transform the country” precisely via a “50-plus-1″ strategy, is so foolish and dangerous.”

But “foolish and dangerous” – along with hypocrisy – are the defining elements of the modern Democrat Party.  Each of these is a sine qua non - a “that without which” the modern Democrat Party could not exist.

It’s true Republicans considered the filibuster – when Democrats obstructed everything under the sun – but the fact of the matter is that they DIDN’T DO IT.

What did Democrats say then?

Republicans want to blow up 200 years of Senate history and change the rules simply because they aren’t getting their way…” said (at that time) Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Then Senator Hillary Clinton said:

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.”

But only BUSH must restrain himself.  To suggest that Obama should restrain himself is apparently “racist.”

Charles Schumer went farther yet:

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.”

But Democrat temper tantrums are peachy dandy.

Schumer also said:

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Well, what did Harry Reid say about the idea of the nuclear option?

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

And remember, Republicans DID NOT DO what DEMOCRATS JUST DID.

Joe Biden had the most prescient words as to what this means for the future:

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy 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.”

Have I remembered to remind my readers that the Republican Party did not actually do this “nuclear option” thing?  Only Democrats are that genuinely evil.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia scolded ACLU President Nadine Strossen at the conclusion of a debate over her views on the “living breathing Constitution” that allows her side to impose their own will on the founders intent, and warned:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court … And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Republicans are going to regain their power in the new “fundamentally transformed” landscape of the American political system.  We will rise up in vengeance and anger.  A president above the Constitution and the rule of law?  A Congress that shuts down debate?  You Democrats wanted it, you sowed the wind, and soon you will reap the whirlwind.

Which is to say, when Republicans pass the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act,” don’t you complain.  Because we’ll only be doing what you started under Obama and the tyrant fascist Democrat majority.

If you are a Democrat, you are un-American.  You are anti-democratic.  You piss on the American Constitution.  And that’s just according to what you yourselves said only a few years ago about what you just did.

It is no surprise that the American flag creates Republicans.  It is no surprise that – overwhelmingly – only Republicans celebrate the Fourth of July and the Independence it stands for.

You Democrats are an abject disgrace.  You are a clear and present danger to the United States of America.  And you either need to change your ways damn quick or we’ll going to rise up and come after you with a vengeance.  And we’re going to use your own damn lawlessness disregard for the rule of law to do it.

I said it on November 6, 2008, only two days after the “fundamentally transforming” election: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”

It’s coming, Democrats.  And no one in human history will deserve it as much as you, because you lived in a society that used to be democratic and you personally voted for the hell that would come to sweep you away.

‘Unconscionable’ Worm Harry Reid Demonizes Republicans For 60 Vote Requirement: READ REID’S OWN PREVIOUS WORDS

July 31, 2011

Harry Reid is a worm.  He can’t be negotiated with or compromised with because he is a pathologically dishonest hypocrite who can’t be trusted.

Here is Harry Reid demonizing Mitch McConnell for not allowing his smoke-and-mirrors bill to have a straight up or down vote.  Never mind that Reid had just got through tabling not one but TWO Republicans bills without allowing a vote at all.  And just how in the hell does that foster anything but a bitter and poisonous climate?

“It’s fair to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful way,” Reid said. “Republican leaders still refuse to negotiate in good faith.” [...]

He suggested that delaying tactics being exercised by his Republican colleagues are preventing a measure from advancing in the upper congressional chamber to raise the debt ceiling. The Democratic leader spelled out the word f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r to make his case.

“You can put lipstick on it, a nice suit, even a skirt on it sometimes, it’s still a filibuster,” Reid said in comments directed at McConnell. The Nevada Democrat suggested that it’d be “unconscionable” for Republicans to use the maneuver to prevent a bill from passing to avert default.

Filibusters (requiring 60 votes)_ are “unconscionable,” are they?  Let’s see how Harry Reid applies that to, oh, Harry Reid.

What is funny” is that I actually had a hard time finding these quotes even though I actually had the VIDEO of one of them.  The mainstream media’s dishonesty, corruption and propaganda are reaching sickening new depths.

Sen. Reid: ‘It’s Always Been The Case You Need 60 Votes’
Jul 29 2011

Sen. Reid Says: ‘The Need To Muster 60 Votes… Is A Tool That Serves The Long-Term Interest Of The Senate And The American People And Our Country.’

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “In the Senate, it’s always been the case you need 60 votes.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose Show,” 3/5/07)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country. It is often said that the laws are ‘the system of wise restraints that set men free.’ The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no ‘I’ve got you,’ no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “60 votes are required for just about everything.” “I have talked with Senator McConnell about this. You know, we may have to come up with a number of resolutions that require 60 votes. Because, as you know, in the Senate, a lot of times 60 votes are required for just about everything. So that’s certainly one of the things we’re taking into consideration.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, CQ Transcriptions, 1/30/07)

I don’t have to quote some Republican to show that Harry Reid is an “unconscionable” dishonest little hypocritical worm.  All I have to do is quote Harry Reid at a slightly earlier time.

Or how about simply point out what Harry Reid is actually doing RIGHT NOW while he himself filibusters even as he demagogues filibustering?

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill
by Stephen Dinan
Published on July 30, 2011

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.

“There is now another filibuster. That’s what this is. It’s a filibuster to stop us from moving forward,” he said.

Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans’ proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day….

I will always wonder how Democrats’ skulls don’t literally explode from trying to contain all the massive hypocritical contradictions that so quintessentially define them.

Then there’s something that I actually didn’t realize: the so-called “Boehner plan” was actually a compromise between Republican leaders, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  Until Democrats cut and ran and pulled out the rug from their own damned compromise:

CR Editorial Note: Sen. Reid, aka “Quirog of Greazidom” had already worked out the House plan in a compromise with Boehner that blew up the House and the Tea Party as many must have heard today. In other words, this was the negotiated plan that Reid worked out and then promptly voted to table as dead on arrival when it finally arrived in the Senate.
 
 Why did Reid table his own compromised plan?

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, who read Reid the riot act after his smary talk on compromise and needing to “get something done.”
 
You see, a compromise would totally go against Obama’s Cloward-Piven plan to bring everything crashing down around America.
 
That story line is becoming more and more convincing as more facts are unearthed.

Boehner didn’t get ONE single Democrat vote (fact: he got FIVE Democrat votes for the MUCH more conservative cut, cap and balance bill that Senate Democrats trivialized, demonized and tabled) for this compromise plan due to the hard-core partisianship of the Democrats.  Boehner stuck his neck out a mile to compromise with Democrats and his reward was a Democrat chopping block.  Because Boehner couldn’t get any Democrat support for his compromise bill, he had no choice but to “conservative-it-up” to get enough Republicans to pass it.

This entire debt ceiling fiasco is quintessential Democrat hypocrisy.

In demonizing George Bush and then voting “NO” on a debt ceiling increase, Barack Obama lectured:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

And since we were talking about the personal dishonesty and hypocrisy of Harry Reid, what did Harry Reid say when Bush was president and he was the same vile piece of rotten filth Senator he is now?

REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country.”

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN DEMAGOGIC QUESTIONS NOW, HARRY REID?!?!?!

Republicans are standing firm for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which would require both Republican and Democrat administration and Congress ALIKE to spend within their means.  And Democrats – who constantly deceitfully TALK about cutting spending and having balanced budgets – are willing to fight to the death to avoid allowing EITHER.

Democrats are actually opposing a plan that would entail just a one percent spending cut a year for six yearsJUST ONE PERCENT!!!  So you can rest assurred that everything they say about cuts is nothing more than a lie, and all their bills that claim to “cut” are smoke-and-mirrors lies that rely on bogus premises and meaningless rhetoric and non-binding resolutions and promises of future cuts that future Congresses are in no way bound to uphold.

Meanwhile, the United States is borrowing 43 cents out of every single dollar that it spends.  And Democrats refuse to do anything to even slow it down.

Medicare is going to go bankrupt in less than five years.  And Democrats refuse to do anything other than lie and demagogue and demonize to stop that from happening.  They will not cut spending and make it possible to extend the life of these programs in any way, shape or form.  Meanwhile, they just outright lie about the Republican agenda.

The Democrats are dishonest by definition at this point. The entire party is the party of “God damn America,” the party of hell.

Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’

July 27, 2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied about his “plan” versus House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, saying that Standard & Poors had said that his plan would keep our AAA credit rating, but Boehner’s would not.

The DNC immediately packaged the lie for the press and sent it out to the world:

To: NATIONAL AND POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: DNC Press, +1-202-863-8148, dncpress@dnc.org

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today on CNN, Erin Burnett reported that she spoke with an investor who talked directly with the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/25/278929/ratings-agency-source-boehner-plan-TTwould-lead-to-downgrade/

Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RXNrtUU-TQ&feature=player_embedded

SOURCE  Democratic National Committee

And then of course the mainstream media jumped in and immediately backed Harry Reid’s and the DNC’s lie.

I don’t know what the record is for a brand new CNN anchor to report lies as fact, but given that it’s CNN, it’s probably a matter of minutes.  New CNN anchor Erin Burnett reported:

Facts should never get in the way of a story that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, so I almost hesitate to mention this, but … it wasn’t true:

And so legitimate media (i.e., sorry CNN and MSNBC, but you aint) began to correct the lie that Harry Reid, the DNC and the mainstream media had invented:

JULY 26, 2011, 4:07 P.M. ET.UPDATE: S&P: Reports That It Endorses One Debt Plan “Not Accurate”
By Stephen L. Bernard
Off DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Standard & Poor’s said Tuesday that reports that it would endorse one of two competing Congressional frameworks to secure an increase the U.S. debt ceiling are “inaccurate.”

“Standard & Poor’s has chosen not to comment on the many and varying proposals that have arisen in the current debate,” the ratings agency said in an official announcement. The official statement echoes comments a spokesman gave to Dow Jones earlier in the day.

Ratings agencies have repeatedly said throughout the ongoing debt debate that they do not endorse any specific deals to cut long-term U.S. deficits.

Reports early Tuesday indicated that S&P was said to prefer Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan over the one being pitched by House of Representatives Speak John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling or else the U.S. could default on its debt. Politicians have tried to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to cutting long-term deficits.

Reid’s plan calls for a $2.7 trillion increase to the debt ceiling, while cutting spending by a similar amount. Critically, that would increase the debt ceiling by a high enough figure that it would give the government space to spend through 2012 and the next presidential election.

Boehner’s plan, by contrast, calls for a two-step process. The first would cut spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion to get through 2011. Then another increase of up to $1.5 trillion would be sought via a bipartisan commission’s recommendations and would have to be approved in 2012 with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Democrats have argued that Boehner’s plan would introduce uncertainty to markets and drive up U.S. borrowing costs.

S&P has previously said that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could still cut the U.S. government’s perfect “AAA” rating if a long-term deficit-reduction plan is not enacted.

Fox News also reported the facts and further corrected the record of Harry Reid’s unprofessional and disgraceful lie:

After Reid claimed Tuesday morning that the rating agencies had endorsed his plan – which cuts $2.7 trillion at most — S&P reiterated through a spokesman that it has not endorsed “any particular plan.”

There is so much dishonesty and so many lies coming from Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists that it is positively unreal.

Here’s more on the actual story without the Harry Reid/DNC/mainstream media spin:

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely
By MATTHEW CRAFT – AP Business Writer | AP – 8 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Could the U.S. lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached to raise the debt limit?

Market analysts and investors increasingly say yes. The outcome won’t be quite as scary as a default, but financial markets would still take a blow. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already strapped, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stocks could lose their gains for the year.

“At this point, we’re more concerned about the risk of a downgrade than a default,” said Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Belton said the loss of the country’s AAA rating may rattle markets, but it’s “better than missing an interest payment.”

Even with a deadline to raise the U.S. debt limit less than a week away, many investors still believe Washington will pull off a last-minute deal to avoid a catastrophic default. Washington has until Aug. 2 to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or risk missing a payment on its debt. President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans have failed to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and pass a larger budget-cutting package. Politicians have tied raising the debt limit and spending cuts together.

But at least one credit rating agency has already made it clear that unless that agreement includes at least $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade, the country’s AAA rating could be lost. Right now, the proposals under discussion cut around $2 trillion or less.

Standard & Poor’s warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a “credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden.” S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

And why will our credit rating get cut?  Because Obama and his depraved administration have been lying and fearmongering the crisis:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down. [...]

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

Thanks, Barry Hussein and Turbo Tax Tim!

That’s right.  We’re going to get our credit rating downgraded – which will have disastrous long-term consequences – because of Barack Obama’s fearmongering lies.  Harry Reid reports something that isn’t even remotely true, and the DNC and the mainstream media pick it up like a symphony.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could get halfway around the world before the truth could even get its boots on.  But I think even that famous cynic would be amazed and apalled by the liberal media complex.

While Mainstream Media Propaganda Has Focused On Republican Divisions, Obama’s Democrat Base Has Completely Crumbled

July 27, 2011

I have seen numerous stories gleefully hyping the fact that the Republicans are in disarray with multiple competing plans (at least they’ve HAD plans).  But look what’s been happening to the Democrat Party behind the mainstream media Republican-attack-machine’s back:

New polls confirm Obama’s Democratic base crumbles
July 26, 2011 |  3:04am

With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders said:

“I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”

This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid’s Democratic posse.

But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders’ mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don’t want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.

Closely read the transcript of Obama’s Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner’s response is right here.

An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn’t congressional Republicans — or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation’s top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said “balanced approach” seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That’s the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent’s strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. “Balanced approach” is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.

Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples’ priority.

Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor’s offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November’s midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.

Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we’ve had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama’s fading job approval, especially on the economy.

Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama’s liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of “poor.”

Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?

A slim 15% claim to be “getting ahead financially,” half what it  was in 2006. Fully 27% say they’re falling behind financially. That’s up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they’ve been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times — and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.Button Hillary I Told U So 2012

To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.

But here’s the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn’t running for anything but exercise.

“More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are  hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply  eroding among  his base,” the Post reports.

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

That’s the Los Angeles Times – getting close to full maximum überliberal.  As the rabid left-wing, they are honor-bound to get in their shot that “It’s really all still Bush’s fault,” but the Democrat Party is in full meltdown.

Obama gave a particularly demagogic speech on Monday, July 25.  He repeatedly called for class warfare taxation on the rich.  Which was in marked (or should I say “Marxed”) contrast to Harry Reid’s outline for a plan which did not call for any tax increases.

From Newsbusters:

In his  White House speech tonight, President Obama renewed his call for a  debt-ceiling impasse solution which requires “the wealthiest Americans and  biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special  deductions.” In other words, he wants tax increases, even though earlier in the  day, he backed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “plan” (using the term  loosely, as explained here  and here)  which, according to two separate reports (USAT; ABC),  includes no tax increases.

In other words, the President, from all appearances, changed his mind —  again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the  past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced  food product.

We’ve all heard of somebody talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The question is just how many sides does Obama’s mouth have given all the different things he can be saying at the same time?

We absolutely cannot trust Democrats at this point.  If they do not have a specific, concrete, absolutely binding plan, then walk away.  Because they have every incentive to lie their way out of this jam and then welch on whatever deal they make.  If Harry Reid says he will offer X trillion dollars in cuts, then force him to itemize out every single dime of those cuts and bind Congress to them before accepting his plan.

They did this to Reagan and they did it to Bush I.  They promised that they would cut spending later if they got the tax cuts they wanted.  And then the next Congress arrived and Bush and Reagan were told that no Congress could be bound by the promises of a previous Congress – even if the same Democrat leaders who had made those promises were still in power.  And just how many times should Charlie Brown believe that Lucy will really hold the football for him this time?

Particularly when they are in a corner.  And they are in a corner snarling like trapped rabid rats right now.

Republicans need to adhere to their basic values.  They have already compromised in that 1) Barack Obama already got $500 billion in new taxes via his ObamaCare fiasco; and 2) in even offering a debt ceiling increase to begin with.  In return, they want spending cuts that exceed the debt ceiling hike and they will not accept any new tax increases.

We can go back to Calvin Coolidge.  We can go back to John F. Kennedy.  We can go back to Ronald Reagan.  And we can go back to George W. Bush.  Every single time we have ever cut the tax rate, we have seen a corresponding massive increase in tax revenues, with the wealthy actually paying more even as they were rewarded for the job-creating and economy-stimulating investments.  Even Bill Clinton substantially cut the capital gains tax.  Meanwhile, every single time we have ever raised taxes, we lost revenue because our economy shrank when investors sheltered their money and protected themselves.

Meanwhile, Obama is back to the same utterly failed Marxist class warfare tactics that have failed before.  In the 1990s, Democrats imposed a “luxury tax” on items such as yachts, believing that the wealthy “could afford it.”  Maybe they could and maybe they couldn’t, but the FACT was that the rich STOPPED buying yachts.  As in stopped completely.  As in NOBODY bought a yacht with that damn tax on it.  The Democrats finally rescinded that stupid tax two years later after destroying the yach building and yacht maintenance industries and killing over 100,000 jobs.  Rich people weren’t hurt at all; ordinary people were devastated.

And now Obama wants to do the same thing with corporate jets that previous Democrts did to yachts.  And they only people who will get hurt if Obama gets his way are the companies that hire people to build and maintain those jets and the workers themselves who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods.  And the only thing that is stopping this rape of businesses, workers and the economy that depends on workers and businesses are Republicans.

I don’t feel the least bit sorry for Democrats who currently find themselves between a very hard rock and a very hard place.  Their core principles are vile, they are despicable, and they simply have to be thrown out of office and crushed if our country is to have any chance whatsoever.

Hey Obama, Democrats Forcing Reagan To Raise Debt Ceiling 18 Times Actually Makes YOU Look Like Slime

July 26, 2011

Obama pointed out in his incredibly demagogic tirade last night that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times.

Raise your hand if you think Ronald Reagan WANTED to raise the debt ceiling 18 times.

You see, Barack Obama thinks you are breathtakingly stupid.  He counts on it, in fact.  And he may be right.  Obama wants to say in passing that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and leave you with the dimwitted impression that the reason Reagan kept raising the debt ceiling is because he was just utterly irresponsible with his spending.

But here’s the question: why did Reagan have to come back to the Democrats with his hat in his hand an average of every five months throughout his entire presidency?

Because Democrats wanted to torment him, that’s why.  Democrats FORCED Reagan to keep coming back again and again and again and again.  You know, the same way they say would be so awful for Republicans to do to Obama now.

Listen to the Democrats attack on Republicans for considering a short term debt ceiling increase like, oh, the Democrats forced on Reagan an average of every single 5 months of his entire presidency:

A senior House Democrat on Monday alleged that Republicans want the short-term debt increase in order to kill the economic recovery and blame President Obama for high unemployment.

House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Monday said that a two-stop approach being weighed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to force another debt-ceiling vote next year was a “cynical” ploy to keep a cloud over the economy.

“The Boehner approach really intends to have another debate next year that is just as big and that’s their point. A big debate this year puts a cloud over the markets and the economic environment, and another debate next year will do the same thing to our economic recovery,” he told a news conference. “So it’s a very cynical, regain-the-majority strategy that puts the entire economy at risk.”

That doesn’t sound very good of those nasty Republicans, does it?

Obama has said he would even veto a short term stopgap bill.  One of the big reasons he wants a longer term bill that will carry him past the November 2012 election is that it will get his reckless spending off the table.  Other than that, he’s right: a longer term deal WOULD help the country have a little more stability, which would be a good thing if we could get it.  That said, I would ask if Obama actually believes such stability and certainty is a good thing, why Obama has refused to allow such similiar certainty and stability in terms of taxes, or regulations, or health care costs, or energy availability, etc.???  Why has the guy been constantly threatening to raise taxes, so people would not be able to be sure what their tax liability would be?  Why is it that there are more than a 120 new regulations being written on employment?  Why does Boeing not get the certainty of knowing the NLRD won’t be out to destroy them for building a plant in a right to work state?  Why are there hundreds of regulations being written for ObamaCare such that NOBODY knows what that mess will look like?  I mean, the “stability’ argument would have been a good one if Obama had applied it to just ONE OTHER THING.  But he didn’t.  Which is why his demand for a long term debt ceiling deal is much more likely entirely political, and to HELL with any other consideration.

Now, I would argue that the primary reason that Republicans are looking at short-term increases is because there isn’t anywhere NEAR enough agreement to have a long-term extension.  Obama wanting tax hikes even after he previously said – and I quote – “You don’t raise taxes during a recession” – might well mean either we have a short-term increase to get us through the immediate crisis or we have NOTHING AT ALL.

But let’s assume that Edward Markey isn’t just a vile lying weasel demagoguing rat bastard and assume he’s pointing out the truth.

So why in the HELL on Democrats’ own tortured reasoning did they torture Ronald Reagan every five months on average????  I’d like Obama to answer that.  If you’re going to cite Reagan raising the debt ceiling 18 times as somehow working in your favor, Barry Hussein, you could at least explain why Republicans shouldn’t force you to come to them and beg to raise the debt ceiling 18 times during YOUR mis-presidency.

And let’s remember that Barack Obama is the worst kind of cynical political opportunist.  Let’s remember how he ripped into George Bush in a vicious personal attack when it was George Bush who needed to raise the debt ceiling:

Barack Hussein:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

So why the hell shouldn’t Republicans leave you twisting in the wind given your pleasure in watching George Bush twist in the wind?  Why shouldn’t they just let the whole damn economy collapse by acting the same vile way YOU acted, you slime in chief?

How about if we add another major Democrat failure who has been demonizing Republicans over their opposition to the Democrats’ TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY PLAN to raise the debt ceiling?  What did Harry Reid say when Bush was president and he was the same vile piece of rotten filth Senator he is now?

REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.  Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country.”

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS NOW, HARRY REID?!?!?!

Why don’t YOU explain why we should NEVER balance our budget like the Republicans want to do with an amendment that will REQUIRE a balanced budget?!?!?  You know, in light of your OWN demagoguery.

You see, the Republicans have publicly said that they spent too much, but they learned their lesson and they want to STOP THE MADNESS.

For hypocrite demagogues like you and Barack Obama, cutting spending is all just talk and posturing.  You want to plunge this country off a cliff, and you’re prepared to demonize anybody who so much as tries to slow you down.

I just thought someone should point out that in Obama’s own demagogic tirade yesterday, he openly acknowledged that his party is a bunch of nasty hypocrite cockroaches by his own standard.

Now, having said that, I think I can also explain why the deficit shot up so much under Reagan’s presidency.  Reagan wanted a balanced budget amendment, saying, for example:

 “Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets – spend no more than we can afford.”

Reagan’s tax cuts actually MASSIVELY INCREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUES.  So why did the debt increase?

Go back to Reagan coming to Democrats with his hat in his hand an average of every five months to increase the debt ceiling and thereby keep the government running.

Republicans want to cut spending.  But what do you think Democrats wanted when Reagan was president?  Democrats wanted to INCREASE spending.  And they were in a position – about every five moths on average for a grand total of 18 times by Obama’s own count – to force Reagan to increase government spending in order to get all those 18 debt ceiling increases every five months or so.

Alternatively, when Bill Clinton was president, the deficit was dramatically reduced.  And why was that?  Because Clinton and Democrats failed so massively the first two years of Clinton’s presidency that Republicans swept into power over both branches of Congress in the historic 1994 Republican Revolution.  And they FORCED Clinton to say “The era of big government is over.”  Republicans began to act on the very first platform of the Contract with America, which called for balancing the budget.  That, and of course, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush having just won the Cold War and putting an end to the Soviet Union, Bill Clinton was able to gut the Pentagon and Intelligence agencies budgets (which helped precipitate the 9/11 disaster, for what it’s worth).

When it comes to penetrating Obama’s constant web of demonization and lies, a few facts go a long way indeed.

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Mega-Gigantic Democrat $1.3 Trillion ‘Spend America Into Bankruptcy’ Bill Melts Under Republican Opposition

December 17, 2010

Dear Republicans,

Soon the reinforcements the American people voted to send you will arrive.

Until then, please keep fighting the monsters with the troops you’ve got.

That’s the gist of my letter to the Republican Party.

And thank God for ‘em.

From the Associated Press, dated December 16, 2010:

WASHINGTON – Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Facing a midnight Saturday deadline when a stopgap funding measure expires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would work with Republican leader Mitch McConnell to produce a bill to keep the federal government running into early next year.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

Reid, D-Nev., gave up on the bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support. McConnell, R-Ky., threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was “unbelievable” that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

“Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don’t want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this,” McConnell said. “This is no way to legislate.”

The turn of events was a major victory for earmark opponents like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years have been steamrolled by the old-school members of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

The spending barons saw their power ebb in the wake of midterm elections that delivered major gains for Republicans — with considerable help from anti-spending tea party activists.

“We just saw something extraordinary on the floor of the United States Senate,” a grinning McCain said.

Harry Reid, true to his demagogic form, blamed Republicans for stonewalling even given the fact that he never even TRIED to bring up a budget or numerous appropriations bills that led to this last-minute fiasco.

Because when you are an incompetent disgrace from a party of disgraceful incompetents, you can always blame somebody else no matter how badly you failed to attend to the most basic agenda items.

So spend two years wasting the people’s time passing legislation like ObamaCare that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not want and continued to not want, and then at the last minute throw out a 2,00o page pork bill filled with 6,714 earmarks.  Because your spineless president will pontificate about how he’s opposed to signing bills laden with earmarks, and then sign the Democrat bill loaded up with earmarks.  The last time, Obama signed an omnibus bill loaded up with 9,000 earmarks.  In spite of his crystal-clear promise not to sign such a bill.

That’s been the Democrats’ plan.

No one’s been able to read the bill, (but remember what Nancy Pelosi said, you pass these things first so you can see what’s in them, like buying mystery meat in a neighborhood deli where dogs and cats keep turning up missing).

And it would have worked again, too.  Except the American people handed Democrats the largest “Up Yours!” message to a political party in 72 years, and Republicans have actually developed something approaching a spine.

This Congress has tried to pass the DREAM Act which would let illegal immigrants go to college ahead of American kids, and then reward them for going to college with citizenship.  They’re on their way to passing a bill that would end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell which would force homosexuality onto our military during a time of war when maybe social engineering should take a back door (pun intended).  They’re vowing to push a bill that would nationalize all police and firefighter unions and impose the union agenda no matter how much it isn’t wanted.

Because Democrats are loathsome, vile and utterly contemptible.

This is THE most repudiated Congress in the history of Congress.  But that doesn’t stop them from trying to sneak or ram all kinds of immoral garbage onto the country rather than let the Congress that the people just elected take over the people’s business.

Keep fighting the monsters, Republicans.

P.S.

For Harry Reid, I suggest a crucifix and a silver blade.  For Nancy Pelosi, you’ll need a flamethrower.

 

 

Vote Democrat – Vote For Politicians Who Take Your Money And Give It To Themselves

November 1, 2010

Let’s see.  Democrats who control both the House and the Senate vote to give themselves pay increases, while voting to INCREASE the cost of our health care while voting NOT give Americans COLA (cost of living allowances).  Two years of Obama; two years of no cost of living increases.

Meanwhile, Democrats want to seize my 401k savings and “redistribute” it to bankrupted union pension plans.  Those union workers have received far better pensions than I ever have.  But they fund the corrupt Democrat machine with campaign money they themselves seize from their workers, so you can bet the Democrat Party is going to keep giving them one kickback after another.

But I love getting screwed by my government.  So I’m voting for the party of screwing one group of people to give handouts to themselves and to their supporters.  I’m voting Democrat.

Subject: Elections are Coming!

Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.

  1. U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
  2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
  3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
  4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
  5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
  6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
  7. Do you feel SCREWED?
  8. Will they have your cost of drugs – doctor fees – local taxes – food, etc., decrease?
  9. NO WAY.

Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.

  • Why should they care about you?
  • You never did anything about it in the past.
  • You obviously are too stupid or don’t care.
  • Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?

Send the message to these individuals — “YOU’RE FIRED!”

In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!

Make sure you’re still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.

It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse.  Maybe it’s time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution..

28th Amendment will be as follows:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .”

Let’s get this passed around, folks – these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves!  It’s time for retribution.  Let’s take back America ..

You’ve got one chance to correct a terrible mistake.  Vote for conservatives on Tuesday, or get another two years of terrible policies and demagogic excuses.

Election Fraud: If You Vote Democrat, You Are A Corrupt Dishonest Cheat By Proxy

October 29, 2010

Everyone could see it right in front of them on live television.  Florida Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink was caught red-handed cheating in a debate.  Her excuse?  She blamed her Republican opponent (i.e., “blame Bush!).

Corrupt Democrat voter machine ACORN never truly dies.  It just changes its name.

In previous elections, any race that was close would be stolen from Republicans by Democrat cheating.  As Al Franken being elected on the illegally-cast votes of incarcerated convicts serves to demonstrate.

But that is no longer the case.  Now, Democrats are behind by larger margins due to their incredibly failed and incredibly fascist policies.  So they have to cheat bigger than ever before to steal elections.

There are all kinds of other examples to show that the Democrat Party is the party of cheating and corruption.

There are the strange goings-ons inside the voting machines in Nevada, which have a mysterious tendency to prompt voters to select Harry Reid.

Add to that the SEIU pro-Democrat voter-stuffing shenanigans, with clear evidence of massive fraud.

Add to that the 250 absentee ballots the Republican candidate tracked to a vacant lot.

Add to that an Ohio public high school that bussed students during school hours to vote after being given a ballot that ONLY had Democrats on it.  After which they were treated to ice cream.

Add to that the evidence in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that the Democrat candidate is flooding the voter registration office with fraudulent applications for absentee ballots.

Add to that voting machines in North Carolina which are “voting” for Democrats even when that is the exact opposite of what voters intend.  Which is simply the icing on the cake of all kinds of other fraud going on there.

Add to that Chicago, where Republicans are being disenfranchised of their right to vote by corrupt Democrat organizations.

Add to that still more corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania who created a fictitious “Pennsylvania Voter Assistance Office” to commit voter fraud.

Add to that a public state university in Wisconsin that illegally urged students and faculty to get out and help the Democrat cause.

Add to that a woman who is literally under criminal indictment for past voter fraud with liberal A.C.O.R.N. now heading up yet another corrupt liberal voter fraud group.

Add to that Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer both illegally and immorally requesting public high school teachers to send public school kids to volunteer for her campaign.

Add to that a Democrat organization in Virginia “shocked” that their free beer in exchange for votes was actually criminal.

Add to that the woman named Gabby Mercer with the Republican “Jan Brewer for Governor” sign painted on the rear window of her car getting a big rock thrown through that window in a clear act of political intimidation.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee committing voter fraud at a polling place.

Add to that First Lady Michelle Obama, who had committed voter fraud in the same way.

Add to that forged ballots and illegals registering to vote for Democrats via groups such as Mi Familia Vota, Border Action, and Faith.Hope.Vote!  Which all have ties to the SEIU.

Add to that a staffer for a long-time Arizona Democrat who was caught stealing the yard signs featuring his Republican opponent (see also here for the KGUN 9 story, at least until they delete it).

Add to that illegal immigrants who are actively working to undermine the vote in Washington State for Democrats.  Even as liberal Democrat bastions such as San Fransisco are currently seeking to undermine the sanctity of citizens and the vote altogether.

Add to that Democrat states such as New York and Illinois disenfranchising military service members – who vote heavily Republican – of the right to vote in violation of the law.

Add to that campaign ads by Democrat candidates such as Rep. Alan Grayson which so shockingly and deliberately misrepresent the truth that even MSNBC are taking them to the woodshed for their gross lies.

Add to that Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, accepting campaign contributions in clear violation of his own promise from banks that his committee regulates.

Add to that the incredibly vicious and misogynist attack against Republican Christine O’Donnell, as a man was paid to smear her with allegations of a one-night stand (i.e., “feminists” despise successful conservative women).

Add to that the earlier clear election corruption by the Obama administration in offering Democrats Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff jobs not to run against candidates preferred by the regime in clear violation of the law.

Nancy Pelosi falsely promised to “drain the swamp.”  Instead, her party is swimming in it.

But it’s not just in campaigning that Democrats are pathologically dishonest frauds; it is in governing.

There was the Generational Fraud Act otherwise known as the stimulus that was sold as preventing unemployment from rising above 8%.  What is it now?

There was the “sales pitch” that promised all sorts of “shovel-ready jobs.”  The problem is that there NEVER WERE any such jobs.  And now we have the admission that there never WERE any “shovel-ready jobs” coming right out of the lying mouth of the liar-in-chief himself.

There was the “sales pitch” that ObamaCare would bend the cost-curve down; that if you liked your health plan you could keep it; that the mandates weren’t a tax; etcetera.  And every single one of those promises was just an obscene lie.

Lately we see the Obama administration playing all kinds of monkey games with the TARP program finances, according to the TARP inspector general.

That’s just the way the party behind fifty-two million dead babies rolls.  I suppose you just shouldn’t expect baby killers to be decent people.

To be a Democrat today is to support institutional cheating, fraud and lies.  If you are a Democrat, you are a despicable cheating liar by proxy.  Just embrace it.  It is what you vote for.  It is what you support.  It is who and what you are.  And shame on you.

Unemployment 7.6% When Obama Took Office. Now 9.6% Are You Better Off Under Democrats?

October 9, 2010

Back in January, while Obama was flush in his promises of “hope and change,” unemployment was at 7.6% as George Bush was moving out.

That was high, granted.  Particularly for a president whose average unemployment rate during his eight-year term in office was 5.2%.

Unemployment was high enough that Obama was successful in turning fearmongering into an art form.  As he followed his chief of staff’s advice to “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Obama said that if we didn’t vote for his unparalleled in all of human history “stimulus” spending, we would suffer.  But if we passed his stimulus, on the other hand, his administration “predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.”  Obama called it “the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

Virtually every single Republican voted against the “stimulus,” predicting it would fail and make bad turn to worse.  Obama demonized them as “the party of no” and demagogued them as “blocking progress.”

The actual figure that Obama’s “stimulus” will cost America’s future – according to the CBO – is $3.27 TRILLION.

Let me ask you: are you better off than you were the day that Obama took the oath of office and put his feet up in the Oval Office?  Are you better off after Democrats took total control of both the House and the Senate?  Have you experienced “recovery,” or has it been a “wreckovery“?

Obama’s stimulus seems to be a pretty good deal – if you are a dead person or an incarcerated felon.

How high is unemployment under Obama?

The “official” government-reported rate remained unchanged this month at 9.6% in spite of the loss of 95,000 jobs.  But sadly the government under Barack Obama has already proven that he is more than capable of never-before-seen shenanigans.

The actual unemployment rate is probably even more frightening – and very likely to get worse.

Gallup – using the raw “seasonally unadjusted” numbers – calculates that the unemployment rate is now back into double-digit territory at 10.1%.

October 7, 2010
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September
Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of August

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ — Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September – up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month — the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September — and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government’s unemployment report on Friday.

Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 15.8% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.9% of those with no college education were unemployed in September.

The increase in the unemployment rate component of Gallup’s underemployment measure is partially offset by fewer part-time workers, 8.7%, now wanting full-time work, down from 9.3% in August and 9.5% at the end of July.

As a result, underemployment shows a more modest increase to 18.8% in September from 18.6% in August, though it is up from 18.4% in July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to fall below 18.3% this year.

Friday’s Unemployment Rate Report Likely to Understate

The government’s final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup’s modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday’s ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government’s national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. This is based on Gallup’s mid-September measurements and the continuing decline Gallup is seeing in the U.S. workforce during 2010.

However, Gallup’s monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September. It could be that the anticipated slowdown of the overall economy has potential employers even more cautious about hiring. Some of the increase could also be seasonal or temporary.

Further, Gallup’s underemployment measure suggests that the percentage of workers employed part time but looking for full-time work is declining as the unemployment rate increases. To some degree, this may reflect a reduced company demand for new part-time employees. For example, employers may be converting some existing part-time workers to full time when they are needed as replacements, but may not in turn be hiring replacement part-time workers. Another explanation may relate to the shrinkage of the workforce, as some employees who have taken part-time work in hopes of getting full-time jobs get discouraged and drop out of the workforce completely — going back to school to enhance their education, for example, instead of doing part-time work. It is even possible that some workers may find unemployment insurance a better alternative than part-time work with little prospect of going full time.

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday’s jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government’s job release suggests.

Conservative economist John Lott boldly predicted when the stimulus was past that it would INCREASE unemployment.  Looking at today’s unemployment rate, who was proven right, and who has been proven completely wrong?  That same John Lott also surveyed other countries and demonstrated that those nations which did NOT engage in a massive stimulus like we did have universally fared better than countries that followed Obama.  And other economists have demonstrated that incredibly costly and redistributionist stimulus policies have NEVER stimulated economies.

Obama’s stimulus has been a complete disaster.  His administration assured us that it would create millions of “shovel-ready jobs.”  But the AP discovered that nothing of the sort had happened:

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP’s analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.”

And, of course, it hasn’t just been Obama’s and the Democrats’ stimulus that entirely failed.  Democrat energy policies have resulted in nearly a million jobs just vanishing – possibly forever.

If Gallup’s data is correct, we will likely be seeing another wave of unemployment soon.  The numbers aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.  We have now experienced unemployment above 9.5% for fourteen consecutive months.  And just to state the obvious, every single one of those months have been on Obama’s watch.

While Obama was on vacation late last August, I compiled some of the disasters that were gripping the US as Obama was gripping a golf club:

Since then, we’ve seen other records, such as “Highest poverty rate in fifty years,” and “Record number of Americans now on food stamps.”  We’ve got bad news measurements such as “Dollar tumbles to 15-year low” and “printing money like mad to ward off deflation.”

Obama spent half his first term passing his ObamaCare boondoggle.  Now Democrats are running against it.  Not one Democrat is campaigning on having passed health care or the stimulus.  Because both are a cause for shame, not pride.

And even liberal labor unions are now pleading for waivers so they don’t go bankrupt trying to live under ObamaCare.

For that matter, even Harry Reid’s OWN SON – who is running for governor as a Democrat – says that his father’s ObamaCare plan will hurt Nevada.

ObamaCare will be a $6.25 TRILLION tax on Americans and on the US economy unless the Republican Party receives enough votes to repeal it.

Economists now realize that FDR’s policies actually prolonged the Great Depression by a whopping seven years.  And that is precisely what the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats have done – prolong the suffering of Americans.

The last time Republicans actually ran the government in November 2006, unemployment was only 4.5%.  Democrats used the Iraq War and Katrina to demonize Republicans.  And those Democrats have done so well with the government ever since.

The last federal budget passed by Republicans – the FY2007 budget – had a deficit of $161 billion.  The very next year, under Democrat control, the FY2008 budget had a deficit nearly three times higher – $459 billion.  And now Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass budgets, and our annual deficit is estimated at over $1.3 trillion.

These are the dark days that Obama is warning Americans of returning to: Low unemployment and low (certainly by comparison!!!) spending.

Are you better off after 2 years of Obama, and after four years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers