Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category

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?

On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come

September 30, 2010

Obama is a disaster in every possible sphere of leadership.

But the question then becomes, “In which particular sphere does Obama’s disastrous failure of leadership represent the greatest danger to America?”

Thomas Sowell answers the question:

September 28, 2010
A Warning from Thomas Sowell
Anthony Kang

Frankly, there aren’t enough words or superlatives in the English dictionary to describe the great Thomas Sowell. With an unparalleled gift to explain even the most complicated subjects in simple and easily understandable terms, few can match the pedigree and contributions of the Hoover Institute senior fellow. Author of the new book, “Dismantling America,” Sowell recently sat down for an interview with Investors Business Daily’s David Hogberg. And along with a few priceless jabs at Michelle Obama, sociology, Newsweek, and the public education system, Dr. Sowell discussed why he (like Niall Ferguson) believes America may be entering a prolonged period of decline.

“The only analogy I can think of from history is when the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French for an English-speaking nation,” Sowell says about the Obama administration’s governing style, a style he characterizes as unconstitutional.

As someone who, if forced to, would label himself as more libertarian than conservative — though he has irked many with his support of American combat missions in Iraq — most noteworthy (and a bit shocking) about the interview is what Sowell believes the greatest threat is — terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the international scene. Questioned as to what some of the current markers of national decline are, it isn’t “huge bills that fundamentally change the way the economy operates,” reckless government spending, social engineering programs and the national debt which worry the economist the most, it is national security and President Obama’s foreign policy.

And Sowell makes a few not-so-subtle Neville Chamberlain analogies that are almost impossible to ignore:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.
Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep. That, I think, is the biggest threat.

Sowell also condemns the president for affronting our allies (in particular, the British and Israelis) in “clever” yet unmistakable ways the general public may not notice, further hastening America’s decline:

His first foreign policy gambit was to fly to Russia and offer to renege on the American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe…All he really got out of that was a demonstration of his amateurishness and of his willingness to sell out allies in hopes of winning over enemies. That ploy was tried in the 1930s and didn’t work all that well.

These are no ordinary times, with no ordinary president. Leading up to the historic “Hope and Change” election, commentators on the Right could not possibly have attacked Obama and his intentions to fundamentally change the identity and economy of America more than they already had. Even so, not only has President Obama fulfilled every single “fear-mongering” indictment down to a tee, he’s exceeded them — making even some his most extreme opponents look clairvoyant. So with keeping that in mind, and considering all the new challenges we face domestically, that one of the greatest economic minds of our time would still elevate national security and terrorism to such a level truly speaks volumes about the reality and situation of Iran.

Also citing the lack of expertise and national discussion in international issues, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton confirmed to Greg Gutfeld that he was seriously considering a presidential run on Red Eye last week. Bolton-Sowell 2012? One can only dream. But hey, if a community organizer can get elected, why not someone with ten times the accomplishments and wisdom?

I’ve said many of the same things, myself.  Just not as well, and not as succinctly.  For example, I said:

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up the price of oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

Just as I also pointed out that Obama was enraging our enemies even as he alienated our allies.

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Iran is employing a lot of rocket scientists to create a ballistic nuclear missile capable of striking the United States and Israel.  But when Democrats are in charge, even the most trivial aspects of common sense are akin to the most sophisticated form of theoretical mathematics.

It is a fact – a FACT – that George Bush tried to deal with the threat of Iran when it was possible to avert their nuclear ambitions; but that Democrats did everything they could to prevent him from succeeding against the insane jihadist regime.  I quoted an LA Times article from just three years ago in which every single Democrat presidential candidate stated that Iran was not a meaningful threat, and in which they denounced Bush’s efforts to draw attention to the danger posed by Iran:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

But the fact that the failure to deal with Iran rests ENTIRELY in Democrats’ hands won’t stop them from blaming Bush when Iran rears its vicious head against the world.  Any more than it stopped them from blaming Bush for the 2008 economic collapse in spite of the fact that they had had total control of Congress for the previous two years, and even though they had repeatedly prevented Bush from regulating and reforming GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which were at the epicenter of the disaster.

It’s just what cowards do.  And the Democrat Party is the party of moral cowardice going back to at least the Carter years, if not dating back to the waning days of the LBJ administration.

You can go back and review the record.  Nearly 60% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate (29 out of 50) voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution.  Furthermore, virtually every single top Democrat was on the factual record agreeing with George Bush and supporting his reasoning to attack Saddam Hussein -

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

- and yet Democrats en masse cowardly, despicably, and I would argue treasonously, turned on Bush and turned on our troops in time of war.  For no other reason than to treacherously obtain a cheap political advantage aided and abetted by a mainstream media propaganda apparatus that could have come right out of the vile brain of Joseph Goebbels.

In addition to their opposition to the Iraq War (which again 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them), Democrats opposed the Patriot Act; opposed Domestic Surveillance which allowed the US to track calls from international terrorists into the United States; opposed Gitmo, even though it is the clearly the ONLY reasonable place to hold incredibly dangerous terrorists that no country wants; opposed allowing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals to safeguard intelligence techniques and personnel, and to prevent the court system from being hijacked by enemies of freedom; opposed  even the most reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists intent upon murdering Americans; and even declared surrender in the vile “I believe that … this war is lost” statement of Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader.  I could go on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

"RUN AWAY!!!"

"RUN AWAY!!!"

To the extent that Barack Obama has done anything – ANYTHING – right at all in the war on terror, it has only been because he repudiated himself and demonstrated that he was either an incompetent fool or a lying hypocrite.  Obama – after publicly denouncing, undermining and alienating the CIA – has continued the policy of “torture” by continuing the policy of “rendition” in which terror suspects are sent to other countries that use torture.  Obama – after continually denouncing Bush over Gitmo – has STILL not closed the facility down two full years after usurping the office of the presidency with lies.  Obama is using a surge strategy in Afghanistan after denouncing Bush’s successful surge strategy in Iraq and blatantly predicting it would fail.  And Obama is now continuing the Bush policy of using predator drones to attack terrorist positions inside Pakistan that US Special Operations forces cannot reach.

That said, Obama – in denouncing Iraq (the war we could and did win) while demanding we massively build-up in Afghanistan (our second Vietnam) may well prove to be the most disastrous military quagmire since the LAST time Democrats led us into the actual Vietnam.

Iran WILL get the nuclear bomb.  Democrats guaranteed that Iran would be able to do so.

Iran will become a plague upon global peace and security unlike anything the world has ever seen at least since the rise of the Nazis and the abject failure of FDR and Neville Chamberlain to deal with the clear and present danger.

And when that day comes, America will be unable to meaningfully deal with it because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party made us economically incapable of rising to any significant occasion.

Leading Democrat Expert On Health Care Turns Against Boondoggle ObamaCare

September 4, 2010

Apparently Ron Wyden joins such illustrious Democrat company as John Conyers (“What good is reading the bill…?”), Nancy Pelosi (“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”), and Ben Nelson (“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill”), in not bothering to read the evil ObamaCare bill that he personally voted for and vigorously supported.

I’m wondering if the only Democrat who actually bothered to read the health care takeover bill he voted for is John Dingell, who accurately said of the bill, “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Here’s the story of Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) actively turning against the ObamaCare boondoggle:

SEPTEMBER 3, 2010
Wyden Defects on ObamaCare
The Oregon Democrat breaks ranks with the White House
.

Most Democrats have come to understand that they can’t run on ObamaCare, but few have the temerity of Ron Wyden. The Oregon Senator is the first to break with the policy underpinnings of the bill he voted for
.

Last week Mr. Wyden sent a letter to Oregon health authority director Bruce Goldberg, encouraging the state to seek a waiver from certain ObamaCare rules so it can “come up with innovative solutions that the Federal government has never had the flexibility or will to implement.”

One little-known provision of the bill allows states to opt out of the “requirement that individuals purchase health insurance,” Mr. Wyden wrote, and “Because you and I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates, I wanted to bring this feature of Section 1332 to the attention of you and the legislature.”

Now, that’s news. One of the Democratic Party’s leading experts on health care wants his state to dump the individual mandate that is among ObamaCare’s core features. The U-turn is especially notable because Mr. Wyden once championed an individual mandate in the bill he sponsored with Utah Republican Bob Bennett. We have differences with Wyden-Bennett, but it was far better than ObamaCare and would have changed incentives by offering more choices to individuals and spurring competition among providers and insurers.

Mr. Wyden should have known better than to vote for ObamaCare given his market instincts and health-care experience. Even so, the price for his support included the Section 1332 waivers that he is now promoting. In addition to the individual mandate, states may evade regulations about business taxes, the exact federal standards for minimum benefits, and how subsidies are allocated in the insurance “exchanges”—as long as the state covers the same number of uninsured and keeps coverage as comprehensive.

Medicaid also grants some indulgences toward state flexibility, even if those waivers are difficult to acquire. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would need to approve the ObamaCare alternative of Oregon or any other states, and the waivers don’t start until 2017, three years after ObamaCare is supposed to be up and running. It is also hard to see how anyone in the current Administration would grant them.

These practical realities aside, Mr. Wyden’s move may be more important as a political signal. Mr. Wyden is running for re-election this year. And while he is now well ahead of GOP challenger Jim Huffman, in a year like this one he has cause to avoid becoming Barbara Boxer or Patty Murray, who may lose because they’ve remained liberals from MSNBC central casting.

This sort of thing also isn’t supposed to happen to newly passed entitlements. Democrats have long believed that once an entitlement passes, however unpopular at the time, voters and business will grow to like it and then Republicans begin to come around. The exception was a catastrophic-coverage program to replace private “Medigap” policies, which Democrats passed in 1988 and repealed a year later amid a public furor.

On ObamaCare, Democrats are having the first political second thoughts, at least in this election season. Mr. Wyden is essentially saying that what his party passed is not acceptable, and if such thinking builds, opponents may have a real chance to replace ObamaCare with something better.

Democrats are now actively running from the Democrat Party and the Democrat Platform.  Democrats are running campaign ads that literally omit the fact that they are Democrats.  They are running as opponents of Obama and his agenda.  They are running in droves as opponents of Nancy Pelosi (even when such Democrats actually VOTED for her as House Speaker).

These same cowardly and corrupt Democrats who were in lock step passing Obama’s Marxist agenda are now claiming that they will offer an “independent voice.” But no, they won’t.

Never forget, “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic bureaucrat.”  And whenever Obama or Democrat leadership needs a vote from a Democrat, they’ll get it.  Votes are largely assigned in the party machine.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will allow vulnerable members to vote ‘no’ on their pork barrel bills if they have enough votes to pass them.  But virtually all of those representatives and senators who voted ‘no’ on bills like the $862 billion stimulus and ObamaCare would have voted ‘yes’ if it had been necessary for them to do so.

And just as many Democrats said they’d vote against ObamaCare until they voted for it (think Bart Stupak and his gang of supposedly pro-life Democrats) – often getting incredibly sweetheart deals for their treachery (think “Louisiana Purchase,” think “Cornhusker Kickback,” among others), the fact of the matter is that you can’t trust Democrats to follow through with whatever the hell they promise they will or won’t do.  If you like relentless liberal socialism, then vote for Democrats.  But don’t be stupid and vote for your Senator or Representative because they say they’ll oppose Obama.  Because the next time they’re needed, they’ll be right back on board, voting as they’re told to vote.

I mean, quit being Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will finally hold the football so you can kick it.  She won’t.  And Democrats won’t oppose the liberal agenda; they’ll support it, they’ll be its footsoldiers, just like they were the last two years.

ObamaCare is more than just bad.  It is evil and it will lead to rationing and Sarah Palin’s death panels in spades.  There are 160 new federal bureaucracies created under ObamaCare, in the nearly 2,400 incomprehensible pages of the bill, and every single one of them both individually and through bureaucratic pinballing will ultimately amount to a death panel.

The stimulus was equally awful for our economy.  And Americans overwhelmingly recognize that, just as they overwhelmingly recognize that ObamaCare was awful.

If you want less of this, please don’t vote for the party that imposed it.  Vote for the party that united against it: the Republican Party.

Democrats have repeatedly demagogued Republicans as “the party of no” even when THEY had been the party of no when Republicans were in charge.  But being the party of no is a GOOD THING when the party in power seeks to pass one awful, America-destroying bill after another.

A Review Of Obama’s Lies, Incompetence As He Gives His Iraq Speech

August 31, 2010

National Review has a record of Obama’s pretzel twisting flat-out LIES.  We should review them as Obama gives his speech celebrating the troops coming home.

First, let’s listen to Obama administration spokesman Vice President Joe Biden:

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

Now first see how Obama massively contradicted himself, all while assuring us that he’d been predicting the surge would control violence all along:

Rush noted Obama’s position in January 2007:

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

And then there was this:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

And:

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

Contrasted with this statement after the surge worked:

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

No you didn’t, you LIAR, Obama.

The mainstream media – the official propaganda arm of the Democrat Party – have repeatedly refused to hold Obama accountable for his lies and his contradictions.

Now let’s go back, remembering that Joe Biden said Iraq would literally be “one of the great achievements of this administration,” and see how Obama did everything he could as candidate to make it a failure, to cause the United States to lose in Iraq so that we would be forced to withdraw in humiliation and defeat.

Dan Riehl notes Obama’s position in July 2007:

Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now.  It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

“It is a course that will not succeed.”

Versus:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

And, of course, there is the all-time statement of treason from Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, quoted in an MSNBC article titled, “Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can’t win”:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, D-Nev.

What we’re going to see tonight in Obama’s speech is “an enormous demonstration of lack of class and grace,” predicts Sean Hannity.  That because Obama has a despicable tendency to blame everything that goes wrong on his predecessor, rather than taking personal responsibility for his presidency.  We already know that Obama will not give Bush or the surge credit for the success in Iraq.  A success which is documented in the Obama’s claiming credit for “one of the great achievements of this administration” and a success which is documented in our soldiers coming home in victory rather than in defeat.

Barack Obama is a liar, a demagogue, and a truly classless human being.

Let’s not forget that Obama will be congratulating our soldiers for their participation in what he called “a dumb, rash war”:

Barack Obama: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

“You soldiers were so wonderful and so heroic in your dumb, rash victory that I did everything I could to undermine.  I want to personally thank you for your useless sacrifice.”

When the only ideologue who is ramming an ideological agenda down our throats – judging from the enormous American disapproval of first his stimulus boondoggle and then his ObamaCare boondoggle – is YOU, Hussein.

Which is to say, it’s a shame that we got rid of one lying despot Hussein in Iraq, but now must suffer an even worse one here.

For the record, our military disapproves of Obama and his handling of Afghanistan and Iraq at a far higher margin than the overall American people.

Iraq War veterans are saying:

“It’s frustrating to see both the president and vice president jumping up and down saying, ‘Look what we did, look what we did,’ when if we actually followed the policies they were calling for … we would have left early and we would have left in shame,” Mr. Hegseth said, noting their opposition to the surge of forces in Iraq.

.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers