Archive for the ‘President Bush’ Category

It’s Now Crystal Clear: If You Have Courage And Want To Fight Terrorism, Vote GOP; If You’re A Coward And Want To Be A Slave, Vote Democrat

August 29, 2014

Yesterday pretty much nailed it: John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement way back on August 7 that said, “The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS.”  And then Obama went on vacation and played golf.  Lots and lots of golf, prompting the liberal editorialist Maureen Dowd to point out on August 23:

FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I mean, Obama literally left to play golf NINE MINUTES after delivering his “statement of resolve” following Foley’s beheading.

Wednesday, John McCain says what is by now beyond painfully obvious yet again:

Asked if he would want Obama to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, McCain said the president still hadn’t developed a strategy.

“Under the War Powers Act he can bomb and then come to Congress after 30 days,” McCain said. “But what he really needs to do is come to Congress with a strategy, with policies that implement this strategy. Does anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?”

Well, DOES anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?  When the Turd-in-Chief finally comes back from vacation even HE says, “Hell no!”  He pointed out yesterday, “Hey, I’m the fool president and even I don’t have a damn clue what the president’s strategy is.”  That’s basically what Obama said:

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

At least the fool didn’t say, “I don’t want to put the cart before the clubs.”  As in GOLF clubs.

Now, he could have gone on to say, “But don’t worry.  I will be going straight to the Situation Room and will not be coming out until America has an effective strategy to  deal with the terrorist army that I foolishly and stupidly called “JayVee” just a few months ago.”  But then he’d have to say, “PSYCH!  I’m only kidding.  I’m not going to the Situation Room.  I’m going to another damn FUNDRAISER!  I don’t give a damn about the American people.  They’re less than cockroaches to me.”

Mind you, it’s not like this terrorist army that Obama only recently was mocking as “JayVee” has been building and growing for the last four years.  Except oh, wait, it HAS been.

Obama having no strategy is a national disgrace that will cause serious damage to America.  There IS no enemy who presents a greater threat to the security of the United States than our Fool-in-Chief.  It is FAR easier to destroy a nation from within than it is from without; as Obama is proving every day.

Amazingly, Obama the coward is trying to blame both the media and the Pentagon for his being a fool without a damn plan.  It’s not the Pentagon that doesn’t have a damn plan; it’s the failed fool who is supposed to be the damn commander-in-chief.  The Pentagon has ALL SORTS of plans that are just waiting for a president to ask for them.  That’s all some top brass DO is formulate plans for every possible scenario.  The only possible crisis disaster that the Pentagon doesn’t have a plan for is what happens if a moronic thug assumes the office of the presidency of the United States.  At the same time, Obama is trying to blame the media for the stupidity of his words, as if it’s the media’s fault that they are quoting exactly what he said exactly as he said it, as if Obama views himself a hand-puppet and is accusing some reporter of forcing his lips to mouth “I don’t have a plan” as he impersonated Obama’s voice just off the platform.

That sort of moral cowardice is the hallmark of his entire presidency as he first demonized and blamed Bush for his first failed term as president and then began to blame the House of Representatives for his second failed term as president.  Every president since George WASHINGTON had a predecessor and even WASHINGTON had politicians from the other party in Congress.  Obama is the first true coward who believes that a single opponent with any power is a threat to his status as a fascist dictating tyrant.  And that’s why this malevolent narcissist is so paranoid about Republicans.

And of course what’s Hillary Clinton saying about Obama’s not having any plan?  She’s repeating her Benghazi line saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?”  She said in testimony about that utter and disgraceful fiasco, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”  And she couldn’t even provide the correct motive – a TERRORIST ATTACK – as one of her possible scenario options to consider.

We had THREE WEEKS WARNING of that attack which resulted in the murder of the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  But what difference does it make, indeed.

There’s a crystal-clear pattern of Democrat behavior: an inability to see or face danger which results in our being viciously caught unprepared.  It’s been the case since World War I, frankly.  World War II, happened again.  Korea, happened again.  Vietnam, happened again.

Mind you, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.  Her replacement as Secretary of State has also twisted reality into a pretzel to suit the Obama talking points spin.  A year ago they refused to arm the rebellion in Syria when the experts (and the Republicans) were urging them to, citing their fear that the weapons would fall into the hands of the more radical elements.  Until it suited their talking point to claim the EXACT OPPOSITE and argue that in fact the rebel opposition was actually somehow growing more moderate as a result of Obama’s dithering and refusing to lift a damn finger to help them.  And the facts that documented the opposite just be damned.

Now, I would submit to you that the forces of ISIS/ISIL that pretty much OWN everything that Syrian dictator Assad doesn’t rather proves the fact that John Kerry and the damn Obama regime couldn’t have been more freaking wrong.  With the result that Obama literally cemented both ISIL AND Assad to permanent power in the region.

Meanwhile, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan wrote a letter asking to join ISIS/ISIL and become a “citizen” of the terrorist state.  But keep in mind according to Barack Obama, Nidal Hasan is NOT a terrorist.  He’s only guilty of “work-place violence.”  And the fact that he screamed Allah Akbar while he was murdering American servicemen after passing out business cards that announced him as a “soldier of Allah” meant NOTHING to Democrats.  Not ONE DAMN THING.  So let’s bury our heads in the sand and not call reality what it is and hope it goes away.  That’s the security platform of the Democrat Party.

Democrats are pathologically weak on national security.  And they have been ever since they hounded Lyndon Baines Johnson – who of course is to blame for the Vietnam War if ANYONE is – back in 1968 when they showed that the heart of the modern Democrat Party is VIOLENT FASCISM at the 1968 riot otherwise known as the Democrat National Convention.

There’s a reason for that.  And that reason is that the Democrat Party is completely wedded to secular humanism, and therefore to atheism, to postmodernism and to existentialism.  They don’t believe in Truth as an objective category, and therefore they do not believe in any ultimate line between good and evil.  It’s all infinite shades of gray to them.  At least unless they’re talking about homosexuality and abortion – in which they take a firm stand landing on the completely opposite side from God and His Word.

And that moral idiocy makes Democrats moral cowards.

Consider a few FACTS as I demonstrate this point and drive it home:

On many levels these ISIL terrorists are worse than the Nazis EVER were and a far greater threat to the world than the Nazis ever were.

Who let this happen???  If you say “Bush” you are both stupid and depraved.  By the end of 2007, al Qaeda in Iraq was routed.  In fact, al Qaeda had not only been defeated, but humiliated.  Obama kept claiming that al Qaeda was on the run while in reality he was allowing them to rebuild.  But al Qaeda truly WAS on the run when Bush left office – having been routed and humiliated in Iraq - and ISIS basically didn’t even exist yet.

It is simply a documented FACT that Barack Obama cut and ran from Iraq AFTER the United States under George W. Bush had secured victory in the form of a safe and stable Iraq that Obama and Biden BOASTED about.

It is a documented FACT that back in early 2009 we have Obama ON THE RECORD overruling his generals and his experts and deciding that he would completely abandon Iraq.  That is simply a FACT and anybody who tries to whine about Obama desperately trying to obtain a suitable status of forces agreement is a LYING FOOL.  In the same manner, we have Obama ON THE FACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD OVERRULING HIS ENTIRE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM AND DECIDING IN HIS OWN INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY NOT TO ARM THE PRO-DEMOCRACY REBELS IN SYRIA WHEN THEY HAD A REAL CHANCE TO ATTAIN VICTORY.

There is simply no question that Obama gave his fiasco of a “red line” warning and then did NOTHING.  Except allow Putin and Russia to step in and ensure the continued rule of Syrian dictator Assad who suddenly became instrumental because of his part in cooperating to destroy the WMD (much of which almost certainly came to Syria via IRAQ, fwiw).  And allow ISIS to spread like the cancer it is, first exploiting Obama’s weakness in failing to attack in Syria and then in Obama’s weakness in completely pulling out and abandoning Iraq.

If you ask any liberal, “Which wins wars, materiel or will?”  That Democrat will say “Materiel, of course”  They view war as pushing a button and defeating an enemy.  But to any graduate of West Point or Annapolis, that answer is WRONG.  It is WILL that defeats opponents and wins wars.  And under Obama we don’t have any will to fight.  Polls show that the American people don’t want to fight because their president has taught them his moral foolishness and cowardice.  A people need to be led; Obama has led them to the pen where they can be slaughtered like the sheep they have become.

And now we have not a terrorist group but a terrorist ARMY that is even WORSE than al Qaeda with a stranglehold over a 36,000 mile CALIPHATE that Osama bin Laden DREAMED of to show for it.  Obama’s own experts are pointing out the FACT that they are more dangerous than al Qaeda EVER was.  And it was Obama who allowed this terrorist army to metastasize.  They called themselves “ISIS” which meant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.  But since Obama literally GAVE them Iraq and Syria, they are now calling themselves simply “IS” for “Islamic State.”  Because the more you give these monsters, the more they become hungry to TAKE.  You cannot negotiate with them.  You cannot appease them.  You can only either defeat them or bow down before them.  That is your stark, black-and-white choice.

Back in 2005, US intelligence captured a letter from the top al Qaeda leadership that put the aims of al Qaeda into four stages: 1) Drive America out of Iraq; 2) create a caliphate; 3) use that as a base to attack the United States and other countries; 4) attack Israel.  They didn’t drive us out of Iraq; Obama drove us out of Iraq when we had already secured victory.  And we have since watched them systematically succeed in their plan beyond all of the worst possible scenarios.  They’re coming right back at us and we’re now far too weary, weak and divided to fight them.

Liberals don’t believe in “black-and-white.”  Their world consists of infinite shades of gray.  There are no transcendent absolutes; there is no objective right or objective wrong.  Morality is relative, constantly changing and evolving according to Obama’s whim rather than according to God’s timeless Word.

There is no question that Obama and Democrats allowed this.  The only question is WHY did they allow it.  And here’s the answer:

Jonah Goldberg reminded us of the attacks that came from the left when George W. Bush had the narrow-mindedness to refer to terrorists as “evildoers.”  Goldberg pointed out the left’s objection to the word “evil” because to them:

it was, variously, simplistic, Manichean, imperialistic, cartoonish, etc.

“Perhaps without even realizing it,” Peter Roff, then with UPI, wrote in October 2001, “the president is using language that recalls a simpler time when good and evil seemed more easy to identify — a time when issues, television programs and movies were more black and white, not colored by subtle hues of meaning.”

A few years later, as the memory of 9/11 faded and the animosity toward Bush grew, the criticism became more biting. But the substance was basically the same. Sophisticated people don’t talk about “evil,” save perhaps when it comes to America’s legacy of racism, homophobia, capitalistic greed and the other usual targets of American self-loathing.

For most of the Obama years, talk of evil was largely banished from mainstream discourse. An attitude of “goodbye to all that” prevailed, as the war on terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation. War was euphemized into “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic military action.” There was still bloodshed, but the language was often bloodless. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a protege of al-Qaida guru Anwar al-Awlaki, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed his colleagues at Fort Hood. The military called the incident “workplace violence.”

But sanitizing the language only works so long as people aren’t paying too much attention. That’s why the Islamic State is so inconvenient to those who hate the word “evil.” Last week, after the group released a video showing American journalist James Foley getting his head cut off, the administration’s rhetoric changed dramatically. The president called the Islamic State a “cancer” that had to be eradicated. Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as the “face of . . . evil.”

Although most people across the ideological spectrum see no problem with calling Islamic State evil, the change in rhetoric elicited a predictable knee-jerk response. Political scientist Michael Boyle hears an “eerie echo” of Bush’s “evildoers” talk. “Indeed,” he wrote in The New York Times, “condemning the black-clad, masked militants as purely ‘evil’ is seductive, for it conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs.”

James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word “evil,” he wrote, “stops us from thinking.”

But as Goldberg points out, it’s not the people who use the term “evil” who “stop thinking”; it’s the idiots who refuse to think in the category that clearly reflects basic human reality.

The Bible nails these people.  They are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  And “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

When James Dawes says that “using the term evil stops us from thinking,” he’s not referring to himself or to his leftist ideology.  Of course not.  He’s referring to narrow-minded conservatives who think in ancient and therefore non-progressive and therefore obsolete terms of right and wrong.  He’s referring to those who in their narrow-mindedness refuse to understand morality as “colored by subtle hues of meaning” the way he does, the way Peter Roff does, the way Michael Boyle does, the way Barack Obama does.

Understand that Obama’s political rhetoric may have changed but he is still a doctrinaire liberal who continues to think like the doctrinaire liberal he is.

Obama referred to ISIS after the choreographed video of James Foley’s public beheading as a “cancer.”  But it’s just words.  If Obama truly realized the Islamic State terrorist army was a “cancer” he would order all of our resources to cut that cancer out and remove it no matter how painful that “surgery” would be.  But General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with crystal clarity that the only way to defeat ISIS is to take them out in Syria:

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Obama’s meaningless response to ISIS in Syria makes it clear: Obama will NOT defeat ISIS.  At best, he will play patty cake with “cancer.”   Thank God Obama will eventually go, but when he [finally!!!] does, the “cancer” of ISIS will remain.  Due to the pathological weakness and cowardice of Obama.

ISIS/ISIL has been growing and building for all the years that Obama has been our failed president.  While Obama was mocking them as “JayVee” they were building up with experienced terrorist personnel, seizing territory, seizing BILLIONS of dollars, seizing a vast arsenal of military equipment such that they literally have the power of a true state, and absorbing whole networks to keep becoming more and more and more effective.  While Obama did NOTHING.

Now, understand why I call Obama a “coward” for not taking on a fight that his previous weakness and cowardice caused.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN if our soldiers die; he’s out golfing.  What makes Obama afraid and a COWARD is that if he tries to stand up and do the right thing, his own leftist base will viciously turn on him.  Because liberals are evil and cowardly and everything that is truly contemptible.  Obama isn’t man enough to deal with his own base; THAT’S what makes him a “coward.”  And a coward he is.

This is a story of of Overseas Contingency Operations, Man-Caused Disasters and how the pathological weakness and moral cowardice of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party has inspired ad emboldened our worst enemies.

One of the things I vividly recall after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was his statement – after being waterboarded and broken - that he believed that the United States response after the 9/11 attack was so massive and so lethal and so devastating that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

The terrorist mastermind was waterboarded until he was “vomiting and screaming.”  He was waterboarded and he was interrogated until he was broken.

Now, we were told by a dishonest media that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “waterboarded 183 times.”  Which is bullcrap.  He was waterboarded FIVE TIMES, which consisted in 183 pourings of water.

Another lie of the dishonest leftist media is that Mohammed was interrogated during his waterboarding and we could somehow not trust anything he said because people will say anything you want them to say when they are being tortured.  Again, bullcrap.  For one thing, waterboarding consisted in only one aspect of his interrogation.  He wasn’t interrogated AT ALL while he was being waterboarded; the entire process was intended to acheive one thing and one thing only: to alter the terrorist’s perception and to force them to understand their new reality, that the United States of America owned them and would stop at nothing to defeat them and to crush their ideology.  Waterboarding was only one PART of that process that Obama has ENDED.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong, of course, in his assessment that terrorists would never dare to attack the United States again due to the astonishing massiveness of the American response.  He was wrong because his waterboarding colored his thinking such that he failed to remember how pathologically weak the Democrat Party truly is and how inspired and emboldened the pathological weakness of the Democrat Party makes our enemies.  All it took was for one Democrat regime to get elected to re-embolden the stunned and dismayed terrorists.

It was via waterboarding and that breaking process that KSM and the other two terrorists who were WATERBOARDED gave up two key facts that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden: the name of Osama bin Laden’s courier – Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq – and the city in Pakistan -Abbottabad - where bin Laden was hiding.  Those two crucial pieces of information ultimately enabled American intelligence to track Osama bin Laden to the very house he was living in in that large city.

Barack Obama was able to boast that he got bin Laden.  But he only got him because of the very thing he demonized and criminalized.

America will NEVER break another terrorist until every Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive.  Because the platform of the Democrat Party is treasonous self-loathing and the refusal to stand up to our enemies and punch them in the mouth before you blow their smirking heads right off their shoulders.

Obama has GUTTED our intelligence capability and he was already at work doing so back in 2009.

Right now we’re seeing the fruits of Obama’s pathological weakness.  For example, when you see the images of beheaded journalist James Foley and the other captured Americans in orange jumpsuits -

Both prisoners in the video are wearing orange shirts and pants, similar to orange jumpsuits worn by detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A similar outfit, believed to be a jihadist symbol of the prison, was worn by Nicholas Berg, an American businessman kidnapped in Iraq in 2004 whose execution by an Islamic State precursor organization was recorded on video and posted online.

- realize that Barack Obama is very obviously far too much of a damn coward to put terrorists in orange jumpsuits (which scream GITMO), but our terrorist enemies have no such fear of putting Americans in them.

In the same manner, consider how liberals came completely unglued over “the scandal” of Abu Ghraib and terrorists being “abused” and “humiliated.”  And of course it was all Bush’s fault.  But of course the even worse scandals that happened under Obama WEREN’T his fault.  But forget about the leftist abject hypocrisy and simply contrast our Abu Ghraib with how the same people who were such “victims” act when THEY get power: they strip them to their underwear, march them humiliated into the desert and mass-execute them.  The Islamic jihadist terrorists view us as weak because we don’t have the stomach to impose our power the way THEY clearly have.  And liberals are literally morally incapable of saying which is worse – Abu Ghraib where nobody died or ISIS where they slaughter their prisoners like sheep – because their hatred of Bush is only surpassed by their hatred of Truth and Objective, Transcendent Morality.

We’ve got a very firm and clear pattern established: Republicans fight evil and liberals surrender to it.

You look at the disastrous cuts of the 1970s under Carter.  You look at the disastrous cuts under Clinton in the 1990sYou look at the disastrous gutting of the military under Obama now.  And you realize that Democrats are pathologically stupid people because they are pathological moral idiots who cannot understand the nature of the world because at their core they do not believe in good or evil due to their abandonment of God.

We had the weak disgrace Jimmy Carter.  And then we had Ronald Reagan who had to pick up the pieces of Carter’s disgraceful weakening of America.

Then we had George H.W. Bush’s “This will not stand” contrasted with the Bill Clinton subsequent legacy of disgraceful policy toward terrorism.  Bill Clinton’s legacy was to leave America both weak militarily and blind due to his crippling of our intelligence capabilities.  As I’ve documented more than once:

Why did we get attacked on 9/11? Let’s find out in the words of the man who attacked us after Bill Clinton’s abject fiasco commonly known as Black Hawk Down in Somalia:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Our military was weak as a result of Clinton’s cuts. How about our intelligence that is tasked with seeing an attack coming??? Clinton gutted that too:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately
.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The 9/11 attack was the result of the joke that the military had become as a result of a Bill Clinton who gutted the military budget. Bush I took Reagan’s mantle and won the Cold War and defeated the Soviet-armed Iraqi regime; Bill Clinton tore that great, powerful military apart. And we paid dearly for it. And every single penny that Clinton saved by dismantling our military and our intelligence Bush had to pay a thousandfold.

As Bill Clinton turned over the presidency to George Bush, he turned over a nation that had already been infected with the 9/11 attack.  Every single 9/11 attacker was ALREADY IN AMERICA while Bill Clinton was president.  They already had most of their training.  They already had their funding.

And now we’ve got George W. Bush contrasted with Barack Obama.  Carter tore the military down.  Reagan built it back up and won the Cold War that had begun under the presidency of Harry Truman in the aftermath of World War II.  Bush II continued the military build-up to confront the new threats that were arising in the Middle East; Clinton said a strong military was obsolete and tore it down again.  Bush II built the military up because Clinton had failed America and ignored the warnings of the cancer of terrorism.  And now Obama has gutted it again.  Our military is a shambles under ObamaThree calendar years ago I was pointing out how evil was spreading like  cancer in the Middle East under Obama.  That is simply a fact and has BEEN a fact that our enemies have noted just as they have taken Obama’s measure and noted his personal weakness.  And if you want to tell me that Obama’s putrid weakness has worked better for us that Bush’s policy of FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES, please don’t write to me, because weaklings and cowards make me sick and I’m sick of being sickened by people like you.

Bill Clinton said the right things when it was politically expedient for him to do so and then denied the very things he said when it was politically expedient for him to do so.  He stood for nothing.  And it was just hollow words, much like when Obama calls ISIS/ISIL a “cancer” and then refuses to stop its spread and kill it.

A liberal writer writing for the liberal Daily Beast and quoted by a different liberal publication framed the rise of al Qaeda from the dust of death it had been in thus:

The regeneration of al Qaeda in Iraq and its expansion into Syria is a warning to American decision makers. Few al Qaeda franchises or associated movements have ever been permanently destroyed. They can be disrupted and dismantled and yet fully regenerate once the pressure subsides. [Daily Beast]

Let me simply ask you: who kept the pressure on and who took the pressure OFF?  It was OBAMA who took the pressure off these terrorists and allowed them to rebuild.  Who on the other hand has been screaming to keep the pressure ON and been repeatedly demonized for doing so?  The Republicans who have the courage to face reality while the Democrats are COWARDS to their cores.

Which is why Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines.”  As they New York Times put it in describing how these two nations took matters into their own hands (because Obama was cowering in a corner when he wasn’t strutting around on a golf green) and bombed ISIS in Syria.  We are now completely irrelevant, even to our closest ALLIES in the region.  We spent the last century building our power and our alliances so that we could shape events.  And one weak, cowardly petty tyrant has squandered all of our influence and prestige and ability to project power away from us.

There is something chilling about the execution by beheading of James Foley that you need to understand:

A video posted on YouTube, later removed, purported to show the execution of James Foley after he recited a statement in which he called the U.S. government “my real killers.”

Foley gave them what they wanted.  He said everything they wanted him to say, did everything they wanted him to do.  And then they slaughtered him anyway.

You can’t appease these people.  You can’t compromise with them.  You can’t negotiate with them.  You can’t “seek to understand them.”  Tolerance is a form of suicide.

The Democrat Party has not understood that since 1968.

You either fight and defeat jihadist terrorism or you knuckle under and surrender to it.  And history has now proven again and again that Democrats will surrender to terrorism every chance they get.  Because they are moral idiots who are incapable of truly believing in good and evil and therefore have an innate tendency to seek to compromise with evil and negotiate with it and ultimately to surrender to it.

There is a simple formula of wisdom or common sense: when it comes to a strong military and reliable intelligence, would you rather have when you may not need – as conservatives have been arguing we should have since we were caught completely flat-footed and weak when we were attacked to start World War II – or would you rather desperately need when you do not have as Democrats desire?  That formula has led to disaster over and over again.  And it has led to disaster now.  Conservatives want a greater projection of strength to DETER aggression; Democrats want more welfare, more dependency, fewer people with jobs, a weaker America, an America that will bare its throat to the scimitar.

There are TWO forms of evil that are both working in concert to destroy America today: one is the evil of ISIS terrorists and the other is the evil of the Democrat Party that has enabled them to so gain the upper hand and which continues to be the only barrier to America having the resolve to fight them and destroy them.  And interestingly both forms of evil are mutually parasitic upon the other: the terrorists cannot win without the Democrat’s movement of cowardly appeasement and surrender; and the modern Democrats need to have Republicans take a strong stand against evil so they can backstab and undermine and demagogue and demonize and fearmonger that strong resolve as they whine, “They’re going to drag you into another war if you vote for them!”

Your vote in November, in 2016 and beyond will be a historic affirmation of whether you have courage or whether you are a true coward.

Don’t Trust Democrats On Debt Negotiations; And Trust Proven Liar Obama EVEN LESS Than Democrats

July 13, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama is a profoundly dishonest and evil man.  That is going to be a major obstacle to debt-ceiling negotiations.  Keep in mind, Democrats have ALREADY lied to Republicans in the past, promising Ronald Regan they would cut spending by $3 for every $1 dollar in tax hikes.  Democrats got their taxes, but then they immediately welched on their committment to reduce spending.  Reagan later said trusting Democrats was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Democrats proceeded to demonstrate that they are dishonest liars again prior to the 1992 elections that saw the end to George H.W. Bush.  Democrats promised that George Bush that they would not make the tax hikes they had coerced from him an election issue if we went along with them; but lo and behold Bush I was brought down by an avalanche of “Read my lips, no new taxes” ads.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are bad people.  They are dishonest.  They can’t be trusted.  They lie.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  And this would be the THIRD time (at least).

This is the kind of cynical, pathologically dishonest man Republicans are dealing with:

“President Obama had promised that he would not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000.  When asked whether the penalty attached to the individual mandate was a tax, President Obama said it was “absolutely not a
tax.” He also said “[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase.” Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Obama Justice Department argued that the penalty was in fact a tax. The Justice Department argument failed because the individual mandate provision was written in a way clearly to avoid using the word “tax.”

An ObamaCare item is absolutely not a tax in any way, shape or form until Obama gets it passed.  Then it becomes a tax.  Because he is a liar and an evil man who cannot possibly be trusted upon to negotiate anything.

Let’s also not forget that ObamaCare already added $500 BILLION in new taxes.  And now Obama wants to add a TRILLION DOLLARS more.

When it comes to the debt celing negotiations, Obama said of raising the debt ceiling as a Democrat Senator with a Republican President:

“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.”

Barack Obama is a dishonest demagogue who doesn’t give a damn about the American people.  And that’s putting it politely.  Only a fool would trust him about anything, let alone a deal involving trillions of dollars in new debt and new taxes.

Barack Obama is talking vaguely about being willing to offer $4 trillion in spending cuts as part of a deal.  But at no time has he ever produced anything even close to resembling a specific concrete proposal.  It’s just a bunch of words from a documented liar.  Where is the Liar-in-Chief’s plan?  If there’s going to be any meaningful negotiation, the least Obama can do is bother to put out a plan on the table.

And when you’re negotiating with Barack Obama, just remember that he’s a liar and a weasel from a party of liars and weasels.

You Call It ‘Obamanomics,’ I Call It ‘The Jobs Holocaust’

July 12, 2011

Quote:

The total number of people who were truly unemployed in June was 25.3  million.

And man that sucks (with “sucks” meaning, “swallowing everything in its path,” like a black hole of doom).

Real Unemployment Rises to 16.2% in June — 25.3 Million People
Friday, July 08, 2011
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The real unemployment rate rose to 16.2 percent in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on Friday, marking a return to levels not seen since January 2011.

The “real” unemployment rate is technically a combination of three measures of unemployment: the unemployment rate, the number of people working part-time who want full-time work, and the number of people “marginally attached” to the workforce.

Those who have left the workforce but would still like to be employed are considered marginally attached.

This figure is considered a more complete measure of unemployment because it captures a broader spectrum of those affected by the weak economy. Merely counting those who apply for unemployment benefits as “unemployed” does not fully account for everyone who is out of work or underemployed.

This real unemployment rate – known as the U6 rate – has been climbing since February 2011 when it was at 15.9 percent. Real unemployment peaked in October of 2009 at 17.4 percent, before falling into the 16 percent range for much of 2010.

It now appears that the real unemployment rate is returning to its 2010 levels, trending upward after staying slightly below 16 percent from February to May.

The total number of people who were truly unemployed in June was 25.3 million — the 14.1 million who were unemployed, the 2.7 million who were marginally attached to the workforce and the 8.6 million who were underemployed.

Here’s an official statistic from the BLS for all of you “Bush-blamers”:

 

Oh, yeah, that Bush was a real job murderer, he was.  Good thing we’ve got Obama now righting all those Bush wrongs.

The problem is that Obama isn’t “right” about ANYTHING.  Which leaves the American people pretty much screwed.

Understand something: the Obama administration assurred us that his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus boondoggle would have unemployment down to 6.5% by now.  But rather than acknowledging that Keynesian economics just dug its own grave, hopped in, and covered itself up with dirt where it should remain for all eternity, we are instead met with statements of fanatic religious faith that “the stimulus saved us from a depression.”

This from the same bunch of geniuses who damn Bush for his overall 5.26% unemployment rate and absolving Obama for his 9.3% unemployment average during his three years to date.

5.26%.  Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, we are all told.  And HIS unemployment rate average was 5.2% (i.e., pretty much the same as Bush’s).  And then consider the fact that George Bush also had to deal with the Dotcom bubble collapse that began under Bill Clinton (which wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq stock exchange and vaporized $7.1 TRILLION in wealth) to go along with the 9/11 attacks and the two wars they necessitated.

Bush really doesn’t look bad at all, in hindsight to the failure Obama has brought America.  But a failed demagogue Big Brother needs to have an Emmanuel Goldstein to bear the blame.  That trick has been around since failed leaders have been around.

This is God damn America.  And I suppose you can think of it this way: in God damn America, you DO have a job.  In God damn America the only job you really need is the one you’ve got bearing the wrath of God for voting for the most evil president in American history.

Obama On Debt Ceiling, Then And Now

April 11, 2011

Here’s the latest from just over an hour ago:

WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit
Associated Press – 4/11/2011

WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit.

A fight over raising the debt limit is looming, and the White House is trying to explain away the apparent contradiction between Obama’s previous opposition, and his position now that it must be increased.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Obama believes his vote was a mistake. He said Obama now realizes that the debt ceiling is too important to be trifled with.

Republicans are threatening to withhold their votes to raise the ceiling unless Obama agrees to major spending reductions.

A failure to raise the debt limit would mean the government would not be able to make debt payments, leading to an unprecedented default on the national debt.

Oh, well, I guess that fixes everything.  The man was just utterly incompetent back then.  But now when he’s in the same position his moral and intellectual superior in every way – that’s George W. Bush – was in, he suddenly realizes he made a mistake.

And you’ve got to give this post turtle in the Oval Office leeway, after all.

But Obama didn’t just vote against raising the debt ceiling; he personally demonized George Bush for trying to raise it.  He said:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. 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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. 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 problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

“America has a debt problem,” Obama said in 2006.  That year, Republicans passed their last budget before losing power to Democrats until this year.  It had a deficit of $161 billion.  The next year the Democrats virtually tripled that deficit to $459 billion.  And in two years of Obama it has soared to $3 TRILLION.

The AP correctly pointed out that “It was a blast by the freshman lawmaker against a Bush request to raise the debt limit to $8.96 trillion.”

It was a personal attack by an evil fool against a president which history now proves knew what he was doing versus the current moral idiot who clearly does not.

Here’s what Obama’s own Treasury Secretary said Obama wanted for America and for the American people only a few years ago:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned Congress Thursday that it must raise  the statutory limit on the nation’s debt by the end of March or risk an  unprecedented and economically devastating default on American debt.

“Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when  necessary,” Geithner said in the letter, which was sent to all members of  Congress. “Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United  States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on  all Americans and American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of  American jobs.”

Obama hasn’t changed since then; he’s the same reckless fool that he was in 2006.  The only difference is that this reckless fool has been promoted to the highest office in the land and in the world.

Obama was dead wrong about pretty much everything he’s ever believed.  Obama was dead wrong about the war on terror (or as he demanded it be called, “overseas contingency operations” or, even more insanely, “man caused disasters.”  Obama was dead wrong on Guantanamo.  Obama was dead wrong about military commissions.  Obama was dead wrong about unlimited detainment of some terrorists.  Obama was dead wrong about rendition.  Obama was dead wrong about presidential authority to wage military actions.  Obama was dead wrong about punitive taxes on the rich.  Obama was dead wrong about his out-of-control budgets.  Obama was dead wrong about every single policy he ever held - on the evidence of his own reversals.

Barack Obama is at best a colossal fool, the grand fool of all fools.  At worst he is the most evil and depraved man to ever contaminate the White House with his moral filth.  Personally, given that no one is more foolish than the wicked, I believe he is both all at once.

This is God damn America, as Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years said:

“No, no, no, not God bless America.  God damn America!”

The hallmark of God damned America is that we get the despicable and vile leaders that we deserve.  And God damn America, but we sure got us a turd-and-half.

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

November 8, 2010

Who destroyed the economy in 2008?  Democrats say it was Bush.  Why?  Well, because he was president, that’s why.

Why – when applying the same logic – Barack Obama STILL isn’t responsible for any of his economic mess fully two years after George W. Bush left office is anybody’s guess.

But stop and think.  The primary cause for the 2008 economic meltdown was a downturn in the housing market and the underlying mortgage market.

At the core of that meltdown was GSEs (that’s “Government Sponsored Enterprises” to you) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has always been that it was – and remains - a social welfare institution masquerading as a financial institution.  And they have made beyond-godawful “financial” decisions because their true loyalty has always been with socialist policies rather than financial ones.

Let’s look at Fannie and Freddie’s current picture:

Fannie, Freddie’s $685B fix
Bloomberg
Last Updated: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010
Posted: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage firms operating under federal conservatorship, may cost taxpayers as much as $685 billion as the US covers losses and overhauls the housing-finance system, Standard & Poor’s said.

Costs for resolving the two government-sponsored entities could reach $280 billion, including $148 billion already delivered under a US Treasury Department promise of unlimited support, New York-based S&P said yesterday in a research report. The government may spend an additional $405 billion to capitalize a replacement for the two companies, which own or insure more than half the US mortgage market.

“It appears unlikely in our view that housing and mortgage markets will be able to operate normally without continuing and substantial government involvement,” S&P said, citing the GSEs’ growing portfolio of unsold homes, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, the prospect of rising foreclosures and billions in legacy losses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who has said there is a strong case to be made for continued US involvement, has promised to deliver the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the housing-finance system by the end of January. Republican lawmakers, who will take control of the House of Representatives in January, have called for the government to end its support for Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of McLean, Va.

“Although federal authorities have taken no concrete public steps toward sponsoring a GSE alternative, Standard & Poor’s believes that it’s a useful exercise to consider how much such a recapitalization might cost taxpayers,” the report said.

$685 BILLION.  That’s quite a mess.

Did it just happen?  Hardly.  This was going on for years.  This was what caused the subprime crisis that destroyed our economy in 2008.

Let’s survey the record.  According to record provided by The New York Times, Fannie and Freddie were in huge trouble PRIOR TO the economic collapse.  And their holdings were so massive that there is simply no reasonable way that one can maintain that their crisis didn’t directly contribute to the greater crisis to be revealed.  Read the article dated July 11, 2008:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

A timeline of the subprime loan crisis of 2008 clearly reveals that it was Fannie Mae’s collapse that started the entire mess rolling downhill.  From Wikipedia:

September 2008

    • September 7: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.’s $12 trillion mortgage market, effectively nationalizing them. This causes panic because almost every home mortgage lender and Wall Street bank relied on them to facilitate the mortgage market and investors worldwide owned $5.2 trillion of debt securities backed by them.[151][152]
    • September 14: Merrill Lynch is sold to Bank of America amidst fears of a liquidity crisis and Lehman Brothers collapse[153]
    • September 15: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection[154]
    • September 16: Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s downgrade ratings on AIG‘s credit on concerns over continuing losses to mortgage-backed securities, sending the company into fears of insolvency.[155][156] In addition, the Reserve Primary Fund “breaks the buck” leading to a run on the money market funds. Over $140 billion is withdrawn vs. $7 billion the week prior. This leads to problems for the commercial paper market, a key source of funding for corporations, which suddenly could not get funds or had to pay much higher interest rates.[157]
    • September 17: The US Federal Reserve lends $85 billion to American International Group (AIG) to avoid bankruptcy.
    • September 18: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke meet with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout through the purchase of toxic assets. Bernanke tells them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”[158]
    • September 19: Paulson financial rescue plan is unveiled after a volatile week in stock and debt markets.

Democrats who bother to offer any reason at all why “Republicans got us into this mess” claim that the Republicans refused to regulate and reform the economic sector.

Well, let’s dig a little further.  Was it George Bush who refused to regulate or reform?

Hardly.

From US News & World Report:

Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That’s right.  George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agencies at the epicenter of the economic crisis.

When did this thing start?  Under Bush?  Not according to The New York Times, as I have pointed out before in a previous article.

From the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

More.  Again from the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

What do we have, even in the pages of the New York Times?  A prediction that as soon as the economy cooled off, the mortgage market would explode like a depth charge and the government would have to step in to prevent a catastrophe.  And from a Clinton program, at that.

The same man – Peter Wallison – who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

So this disaster began under Bill Clinton.  Specifically, it began in the very final years of the Clinton administration.  Interestingly, at the same time that the Dot-com bubble was getting ready to explode on Clinton’s watch.  Clinton got all the credit for a great economy, and Bush got to watch 78% of the value of Nasdaq destroyed just as he was taking office.  $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized (43% of the the Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003).  Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive economic disaster (made even worse by the shocking 9/11 attacks), and Bush turned economic calamity into the longest consecutive period of job growth (52 straight months) in history.  In diametrical contradiction to all the lies that you have  heard from Democrats and from a mainstream media propaganda machine that often puts Joseph Goebbels to shame

What did George W. Bush do to deal with the necessary regulation and reform of these government-subsidized behemoths Fannie and Freddie?

Read what the New York Times said back in September 11, 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

So Bush WANTED to regulate and reform the industry that would destroy the economy five years later, again, in contradiction to a blatantly dishonest and ideologically liberal and biased media.  Bush didn’t “refuse to regulate.”  Bush TRIED to provide the necessary regulatory steps that could have averted disaster.

And who blocked those regulations and reforms that Bush tried to provide?  None other than Barney Frank and his Democrat buddies:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats blocked reform and regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  They threatened to filibuster any attempt at regulation and reform.  Meanwhile John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs.  He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.

Because of Democrats.  Who were virtually entirely to blame for the disaster that ensued as a result of their blocking of reform and regulation.

What did Democrats do with the mainstream media’s culpability?  They falsely dropped the crisis at the feet of “greedy” Wall Street.  But while examples of Wall Street greed abound, the liberal intelligentsia deliberately overlooked the central and preceding role of Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

And the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased.  What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a primary conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency.  What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.  This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle.  Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate.  And then to explode.  It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments.  This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’.  And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats.  And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.

Barack Obama Loses Control At Rally, Falsely Demonizes ‘Side’ That Saved More Than A Million Lives

October 31, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar without shame.  He is also a pathologically petty man, a man who has singlehandedly reduced the once great office of the presidency of the United States of America to “dude.”

It’s bad enough to constantly lie, as Obama constantly does.  But he proceeds to falsely demonize Republicans who saved the lives of more than a million people suffering from AIDS.

It’s past time to call this shameless liar and disgrace to the office of the presidency out for what he is.

OBAMA LOSES IT!… Presidential MELTDOWN in Connecticut (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 30, 2010, 8:38 PM

Woah!
Unbelievable– President Obama loses it in Connecticut!
Watch him go off on the protesters… Then he switches side and starts going off some other people.
It went on for 3 minutes.

This Was Wild—

He was campaigning for Blumenthal.

More… Chisum added:

Obama said: “We’re funding global AIDS and the other side is not!”

What? I thought it was our tax dollars? He deserves to be booed and ridiculed just for that statement!

The Hill has more on the meltdown.

Still More… President Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign saved 1.1 million lives.

The last link above is to a Washington Times article which says in part:

Former President George W. Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign has reduced by 10 percent the mortality rates in 15 targeted countries, primarily in Africa, and has saved 1.1 million lives, according to a study that for the first time quantified the successes of his program.

The study by two Stanford University doctors showed the treatment part of PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which involves making drug treatment available to about 2 million people, has shown solid success while the prevention efforts under the program have not yet produced the same concrete results.

“It has averted deaths – a lot of deaths – with about a 10 percent reduction compared with neighboring African countries,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, a fellow in infectious disease and in health policy and research at Stanford who led the study. “However, we could not see a change in prevalence rates that was associated with PEPFAR.” [...]

Some Republicans fought during the 2008 debate to keep the focus on treatment, arguing it produced concrete results compared with what they saw as vaguely defined prevention efforts. Those advocates saw Monday’s report as vindication.

Barack Hussein Obama is not just a shameless liar who demonizes good people.  He is an evil man.  He is the very worst kind of fearmonger and racial demagogue who tells Latinos “to punish your enemies.”

The New York Times once ran a story about Obama that began:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

I pointed out Obama’s failure and lie a year ago.  And his disgrace is even more profoundly obvious now than ever before.

This liar without shame, character, or honor who billed himself as the leader who would transcend ideology and partisanship is now out there telling one group of people – one RACE of people, in fact – to “punish” another group, another race, as “enemies.”

There is no question that this evil man broke his “core promise” to the American people.

I pointed out after the election that made Obama president that he is the president of “God damn America.”

And that, too, is more obvious than it has ever been before.

You want to punish somebody?  Punish the Liar-in-Chief.  Punish the Democrats who have brought us to the point of ruin.

P.S. Richard Blumenthal, the candidate for whom Obama was campaigning, and Obama are like two peas in a pod.  So it’s fitting that Obama would tell such an egregious lie while campaigning for him.  Lest we forget, Blumenthal is the man who despicably lied about his having served in combat in Vietnam when in fact he hadn’t even been there.  And in addition to a complete lack of character, Obama shares with Blumenthal a complete and pathetic lack of understanding as to how to create jobs.

If you want losers and liars like Barack Obama and Richard Blumenthal, then vote for God damn America.

If, on the other hand, you are fed up with this crap, then show up on Tuesday and vote these Democrat bums out of office.

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.

.

Obama Total Failure As Leader: Even Uber Liberals Throwing Obama Overboard In Gulf Disaster

June 16, 2010

If you see Obama covered in oil, it’s because a gang of liberals shoved him overboard into the sticky muck.

It appears that things are really getting desperate for the left.  Leftwing journalists, who have always been such reliable propagandists for Democrats, might finally be at that point where they realize if they don’t report the truth, their viewers will go to those that will.

From the gang of liberals at MSNBC:

MSNBC Trashes Obama’s Address: Compared To Carter, “I Don’t Sense Executive Command” Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

VIDEO: Obama: Oil Disaster “Most Painful And Powerful Reminder” That We Need Clean Energy

VIDEO: Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech

VIDEO: Frank Luntz Focus Group On Obama’s Address: “Negative”

Here’s the Youtube video in which the above comments were made:

From the New York Times:

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

“The present system is not working,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said Thursday at a hearing in Washington devoted to assessing the spill and the response. Oil had just entered Florida waters, Senator Nelson said, adding that no one was notified at either the state or local level, a failure of communication that echoed Mr. Bonano’s story and countless others along the Gulf Coast.

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

They were supposed to be better prepared. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989, skimmers, booms and dispersants were in short supply for the response, which was led by a consortium of oil companies in which BP was the majority stakeholder.

A year later, lawmakers passed the federal Oil Pollution Act to ensure that plans were in place for oil spills, so the response effort would be quick, with clear responsibilities for everyone involved.

No skimmers were available when the Exxon Valdes ran aground.  And – thanks to our fool-in-chief Barry Hussein – when we had a chance to get some much needed assistance to supply much-needed skimmers, Barry apparently thought they said, “We’d like to send you winners” and turned them down fearing they would make him look bad.

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertiseBy LOREN STEFFY -  Houston Chronicle – 06/08/2010

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

So we’ve got this complete, unmitigated, and inexcusable disaster:

Had Obama accepted the offer back then and not allowed BP to use illegal dispersants, the oil would have never made landfall 48 miles away.

Today, (a month and half to late) there are US tankers that are steaming to the site with four pairs of modern skimming booms that were airlifted from the Netherlands and should be sucking up oil at the flow site within days.

Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

If those skimmers were in place when they were offered a month ago, each pair could presumably recover 4.4 million barrels of oil. Four pairs of the state of the art skimmers would be able to suck up 17.6 million barrels in a month, although they will not be able to reach the depths of the plumes that are floating away with the illegal dispersants.

Thirteen nations offered to give us help to mitigate this massive disaster.  And Obama basically wrote, “To whom it may concern, please to get the hell out of my business” letters to all of them.

And, of course, this failure is too big for just one inexcusable and stupid and unforgivable abandonment of leadership, judgment, and basic common sense.  In addition to the “Thanks, but up yours” response to other nations’ offers to supply skimmers, Obama also allowed MILES of boom that would have been hugely important in protecting the coasts to sit useless in warehouses:

UNBELIEVABLE! How’s this for HOPE AND CHANGE?

Tar blobs began washing up on Florida’s white sand beaches near Pensacola this past weekend. Crude oil has already been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi, and has impacted about 125 miles of Louisiana coastline.

It didn’t have to be this way.

(Reuters)
There are miles of floating oil containment boom in warehouse right now and the manufacturer Packgen says it can make lots more on short notice.
There’s just one problem… No one will come get it.

It’s unfair to compare Bush’s failure at the 500-year hurricane striking the worst possible location with Obama’s failure in this oil leak disaster – Obama’s failure is incommensurately worse.

And the American people know it.  A new poll–by a left leaning public opinion firm–finds that:

Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama’s handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama’s done dealing with the spill.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Since Obama was elected, I’ve been saying that a third of American voters would continue to support Obama even if he led us into the stone-age-like conditions that Kim Il Jong has led his people into.  We could be living in the dark and freezing at night, and scratching our own fecal matter from the ground in order to have something to burn, and this group of people would still adore their Dear Leader.

And what is Obama’s response to this terrible crisis?  Well, his golf game certainly hasn’t suffered in any way.  He’s been very busy doing fundraisers so his fellow liberal buddies can have a chance to stay in office.  He got a nice vacation in.

Oh, and he gave a speech.  A speech in which Obama sought to seize advantage of the disaster in order to impose his monstrous and disastrous cap-and-trade system that would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”  Obama is no leader who can possibly solve this crisis; he is rather a demagogic community organizer who can only seek to ideologically benefit from the crisis.

And MSNBC and the New York Times aren’t the only liberals who realize the disastrous and disgraceful failure that Obama has been.  Longtime liberal Democrat political strategist James Carville realized it.  Liberal journalist and former Clinton administration public affairs hack Kirsten Powers realized it.  I’m sure a lot of other liberal media pukes are realizing that we’re coming to the place where they either throw Obama overboard for his incompetence, or demonstrate that they themselves are clearly incompetent in their analysis.

I like the way the American Thinker concludes on Obama’s performance:

The utter lack of leadership and hands-on management in responding to the Gulf oil crisis is an embarrassment to the President, as well as a hideous disaster for the Gulf and those who live near it. Can Obama’s first-ever Oval Office address make the damage to his standing go away? I seriously doubt it. Obama has failed in his duty to protect the homeland through sheer inexperience, incompetence, and indolence. The man who has planty of time for golf, hoops, parties, and fund-raisers is asleep at the switch when it comes to making the system respond effectively to an emergency. There is no papering over the spectacle with rhetoric.

.

Obama Wants To Know ‘Whose Ass To Kick.’ Tell Him To Start With His OWN

June 8, 2010

Obama falsely presented himself as a great unifier, a “new politician,” one who would transcendentally rise above petty bickering and usher us into a new Utopia.

And remember all that garbage about Obama pointing to his election as the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal?

The only problem is that he was in reality never anything more than a petty demagogue.  He’s a community organizer, and all that community organizers know how to do is racially divide communities and boycott businesses that create jobs and produce wealth.

Listen to the audio of Obama’s contemptibly arrogant boasts while watching footage of pelicans desperately floundering to somehow stay alive in the billions of gallons of oil contaminating the coasts.

And as Americans rightly blame Obama’s federal government more and more for this disaster, that demagogue is coming out to bite.

From the AP:

VENICE, La/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said he wanted to know “whose ass to kick” over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, adding to the pressure on energy giant BP Plc as it sought to capture more of the leak from its gushing well.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick,” Obama said in an interview with NBC News’ “Today” to air on Tuesday.

They were the angriest words yet about the catastrophe from Obama, who has been criticized for his response to the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Obama reiterated that all those affected should be adequately compensated.

Why don’t you start by kicking your own ass, Obama?  And give it a good, hard kick right out of the office you are clearly not qualified to hold.

A Washington Post/ABC poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the government had done a “not so good” or “poor” job handling the spill. Just over 1,000 people were surveyed in the poll, conducted between June 3 and 6.

Which is another way of saying, “Hey Obama, you suck!!!”

The American people think you should kick your own damn lying weaselly scrawny ass.

And here’s another little factoid via ABC:

A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.

Which is to say you are now officially a bigger failure over the Gulf disaster than George Bush was over Hurricane Katrina, Obama.  Please wear the title of Worst President EVER” proudly.

You really want to know whose ass to kick, Obama?  I cite myself from a previous article, and that is hardly all the reasons to blame Obama:

Barack Obama took more money from British Petroleum than any politician over a twenty year period.  In spite of the fact that he had only been in national politics for less than three years.  Barack Obama’s administration approved the project and granted the permit for the doomed BP drilling site.  Barack Obama’s administration helped quash environmental problems and issued an environmental waiver to BP at said doomed site only days before the disaster.  Barack Obama failed to take the disaster seriously and delayed serious action for weeks, fiddling with fundraisers, golf outings, and vacations while the Gulf went to hell.  The Obama administration has continued to delay and waste time pursuing the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s regarding mindless bureaucratic inanities.

That’s hardly all the reasons to point out that Obama bears a massive amount of responsibility for this disaster, or that he has been a complete failure in responding to the disaster.  And even many liberals are realizing the scope of Obama’s failure.

Instead of idly speculating whose ass you should be kicking, why don’t you resign from office, so someone who knows what the hell he’s doing can instead actually lead us to an actual solution to this terrible crisis???

We will have our chance to kick Obama’s ass in November.

Update, June 9, 2010:

The Looking Spoon suggests that an Obama official help Obama decide whose ass should be kicked first by means of a mirror:

And Bill Kristol had a magnificent point to make about Obama calling meetings of experts so he could decide whose ass to kick:

The best thing about his statement is not really that I’m — excuse the vulgarity, “I want to kick some ass, I’m angry.”  If the president said that, you’d say, fine, he’s angry. But I love his formulation that the reason I listen to these experts is that they have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.

He’s so professorial that he thinks you have to call a meeting of experts to decide whose ass to kick. Don’t most politicians, most executives just decide that at some point, I’m going to go get mad and they don’t have the meetings experts in the Roosevelt Room to decide who to get mad at.

It had not yet occurred to me that I had never needed a room full of bureaucrats to decide whose ass I should kick until Kristol pointed that common sense out to me.  I’m just glad I wasn’t drinking milk when I heard this.

Bu-Bu-But I thought Obama Was Making The World Love Us After Bush

January 6, 2010

The world just loves that Barack Obama, the lamestream media keeps telling us, and they love America because of Obama.

Other than the fact that they don’t.

Sarkozy cools toward Obama

Source: Global Times
December 29 2009]

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone cold on his US counterpart Barack Obama, the Financial Times (FT) reported Monday.

Sarkozy, whose pro-Washington stance has seen him nicknamed “Sarko the American,” stressed that France and the US were “the same family” during his first face-to-face meeting with Obama in April since the US elections last year.

But the French president has clashed since then with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Sarkozy is reverting to the anti-US posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” the FT quoted Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists, as saying.

Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private.

Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change, according to The Times of London.

In September, the French president expressed his frustration over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the priority that Obama attaches to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

The French government also refused a US request to send more troops to Afghanistan, while several other European allies are planning to do so.

The French press often publishes Sarkozy’s unflattering comments about Obama’s lack of prior government experience, his alleged difficulty in reaching decisions or his domestic electoral setbacks.

“The paradox of the situation is that in terms of the relationship with the US, he can do a Chirac in that he can criticize the Americans but he can do it from a position that is 180 degrees different from Chirac,” the FT quoted François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based think tank, as saying.

“He can play to a habitual anti-American standpoint but not from a position that is fundamentally anti-American,” he added.

Agencies – Global Times

“Pro-Bush position”?  “Anti-Obama position”?  Blasphemy!!!  “Objective” journalists across the nation tear their robes at this crime against He-Who-Makes-Their-Legs-Quiver.

This “anti-Obama position” didn’t just happen overnight.  It began with Obama’s reckless spending plan also known as the stimulus.  Many leaders of European countries that had already seen the socialist road to hell did not want to go over it again, as Obama demanded:

But it is not just Canada where the unemployed are faring better. Other countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel nodding in agreement at his side, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “the problem is not about spending more.” Later that month, the president of the European Union, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, castigated the Obama administration’s deficit spending and bank bailouts as “a road to hell.” The Washington Post wrote that there was a “fundamental divide that persists between the United States and many European countries over the best way to respond to the global financial crisis.”

The unemployment rate in the European Union was higher than in the United States to begin with even before the Obama administration’s spending. By January, the EU unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent — almost a whole percentage point higher than ours.  So what has happened since the big U.S. stimulus spending spree was passed? We more than caught up with the EU’s high unemployment rate.  By August, the last month data is available for the EU, the U.S.’s unemployment rate slightly exceeded the EU’s — 9.7 versus 9.6 percent.

And of course the leaders of Europe were right, and Obama is an  inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent socialist nincompoop.  And watching your fellow leader on the other side of the pond fail doesn’t inspire either confidence or camaraderie.

Another issue has been the unrelenting march of Iran toward nuclear weapons while Obama dithered, pontificated, and showed his weakness while many European leaders are after years FINALLY beginning to understand the threat of a nuclear Iran.  From an article I wrote months ago:

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

And of course Obama’s “deadline” for Iran to suspend its nuclear program has now come and gone without so much as a whimper from Obama.

With such profound differences on how to rebuild their economies and take care of their people (or not), and on how to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and protect their people (or not), you can see why the honeymoon might be over.  Just because a thrill goes up Chris Matthews leg doesn’t mean that one goes up Nicholas Sarkozy’s.

Well, at least the terrorists don’t dare attack us under the beloved Obama.

Oops, wait a second.  I guess we’ve had a dozen attempted terrorist attacks in 2009, including two that were completely undetected on Obama’s watch.  Versus years of being safe under George Bush after he took measures (which Obama dismantled) to keep the country safe.

Not to mention two successful domestic jihadist terrorist attacks in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Obama vowed to completely and fundamentally change the way the world views the United States, and inspire global cooperation.  But when it comes to Europe, Obama gets to talk to the hand.  Obama wants Europe to massively tighten its security.  But it appears he’s fixating on the splinter in Europe’s eye rather than the gigantic log in his own:

NEWARK (CBS) ― It’s a tale of shocking ineptitude: CBS 2 has learned a series of missteps unnecessarily added to the mayhem at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday. The six-hour delay stranded thousands of people, creating extreme crowding and chaos.

The mistakes made at the airport give new meaning to the term “domino effect.” It was a cascading series of missteps that cry out for action.

The sign at the Transportation Security Administration screening post at Newark read: “Premises Under Constant Video Surveillance.”

What it should add is: “If We’re Lucky.”

The Post and Courier has this to say about Dear Leader Obama’s handling of the war on terror – oops – make that the “overseas contingency operation” (sans the “overseas” part):

President Obama replaced the top intelligence professionals installed by President Bush on the grounds that they were tainted by what he considered the unethical practices of the last administration in fighting the war on terror. He damaged morale in the intelligence community by reopening a closed investigation of allegations of detainee mistreatment. President Obama has shunned the very concept of a war and has shown a preference for treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts.

Whether the president’s actions gave terrorists an advantage isn’t obvious, but this year for the first time in eight years there have been two undetected terrorist attacks on the United States. The first came on Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Maj. Malik Hassan killed 13 and wounded 30 in an attack apparently inspired by radical Muslim views. Hassan was known by U.S. intelligence to be in frequent contact with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the same man said to have counseled the unsuccessful Christmas Day bomber.

How’s that “the world loves us now because Obama is president” thing working for you?

I remember the words of Janet Napolitano as she changed “terrorist attack” to “man-caused disaster”:

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear…”

There’s still time to use replace “man-caused disasters” with the phrase, “bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-all-goes-away.”

Maybe “the politics of fear” had the virtue of bearing at least some resemblance to reality.

Hmmm:

Or…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers