Community Agitator-In-Chief Obama Never Saw Himself As An ‘American’ – On His OWN View

This is kind of funny, in a sick, twisted, ironic sort of way.  Remember how Democrats demonized anybody who in any way, shape or form drew attention to Obama’s middle name “Hussein” as “racist”???  And then Barack Hussein HIMSELF took the oath of office using his middle name???  Yeah, in the same way anybody who in any way, shape or form questioned Obama’s patriotism or questioned his commitment to America had to be a racist; but now we find out that Obama HIMSELF WAS QUESTIONING HIS COMMITMENT TO AMERICA:

In new biography, Obama asks: Am I an American?
by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
posted May 7 | 8:47pm at8:47pm

Ever since the 2008 campaign, many voters, and some journalists too, have felt they know Barack Obama’s life story. In fact, the story they know is the one Obama told them.

Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” published in 1995, has become the semi-official record of his life. But it is not the complete record of his life. It’s partially fictionalized, with composite characters that Obama has always acknowledged were created to make the story read better. It focuses on a few themes Obama wanted to present to the public about himself. And, as with any memoir, it is told completely from Obama’s point of view. It’s not a biography.

Next month the beginnings of an Obama biography will be published, by former Washington Post reporter David Maraniss. Readers wanting to learn about Obama’s entire life will be disappointed to discover that Maraniss stops when Obama is age 27, as he finishes work as a community organizer in Chicago and heads to Harvard Law School. Obama’s law school years, his practice of law in Chicago, his campaigns and career as an Illinois state senator, U.S. senator, presidential candidate — none of that will be covered.

Still, an excerpt of the Maraniss book published last week in Vanity Fair reveals a portrait of Obama that might have enriched the voters’ understanding of him in the 2008 campaign, when many Americans were eager to learn about this new, fresh face in politics.

The excerpt focuses on Obama’s brief time in New York after his graduation from Columbia University. The son of a Kenyan father and an American expatriate mother, Obama emerges as a man questioning whether he viewed himself, or wanted to be viewed by others, as an American. Not in a citizenship sense — Obama was born in the United States and that was that — but in the sense of how he saw the world and wanted to be seen by it.

Obama had a lot of Pakistani friends; Maraniss writes that if Obama and his girlfriend socialized as a couple, “it was almost always with the Pakistanis.” Obama appeared to identify with his friends as fellow non-Americans. “For years when Barack was around them, he seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective,” Maraniss writes. “He was one of them, in that sense.”

But Obama was ambitious. Appalled by the “dirty deeds” of “Reagan and his minions” (as he wrote in “Dreams from My Father”), Obama became increasingly interested in, as Maraniss writes, “gaining power in order to change things.” He couldn’t do that as an international guy hanging around with his Pakistani friends; he needed to become an American.

So he did. One of those Pakistani friends, Beenu Mahmood, saw a major change in Obama. Mahmood calls Obama “the most deliberate person I ever met in terms of constructing his own identity,” according to Maraniss. The time after college, Mahmood says, “was an important period for him, first the shift from not international but American, number one, and then not white, but black.”

Years later, the picture of Obama as a young adult wondering whether or not he was really an American was precisely the image that the Hillary Clinton campaign wanted to impose on the middle-aged Obama. In internal memos, top Clinton strategist Mark Penn questioned Obama’s “lack of American roots,” writing that “Obama’s roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

Clinton didn’t come out and say that during the campaign, but she did everything she could to present herself as the all-American candidate in the race. Her campaign didn’t play Tom Petty’s “American Girl” at all her rallies for nothing.

In the general election, the contrast between Obama and John McCain was, of course, even more stark. At the age Obama was wondering whether he was an American or not, McCain, the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals, was a newly-commissioned officer at Naval Air Station Pensacola, headed for a noteworthy military career. It seems unlikely McCain spent much time musing on whether he was an American.

In the end, as the Maraniss excerpt has it, Obama chose to become an American in part because that’s what he needed to be to accomplish his goals. The story of what he did after that momentous decision will, unfortunately, have to wait for another biography.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

We already knew that Barack Obama was never a true American long ago:

“To avoid being mistaken for a white sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.” –Barack Obama, Dreams From My Father

None of those groups are “American” in the sense that the overwhelming majority of the American people would ever affirm or certainly would ever embrace.

And that’s just ONE of the many troublesome quotes Obama told us before the most radically liberal Senator became president.

Obama didn’t want to hang out with those who loved America, but only with those who hated it and felt marginalized by it.  It’s beyond terrifying – and I mean “Manchurian Candidate” terrifying – that someone who without any question whatsoever thought that way as an adult man is now the president of the United States.

Dinesh D’Souza pointed out a rather terrifying thing that the media never bothered to examine emerging from Obama’s title – “Dreams FROM My Father”:

What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country’s independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”

D’Souza clearly didn’t want to “go there,” but Barack (actually Barak) Hussein Obama, Sr., was also a self-acknowledged and commited communist.  Obama received his dreams from a committed Marxist ideologue.

Dreams FROM my communist, America-hating father.

What the mainstream media did with its abject refusal to examine Barack Obama’s background is absolutely STUNNING.  The same media that literally flew thousands of miles to dig through Sarah Palin’s trash cans didn’t bother to look into Obama’s background in any way, shape or form unless it was exclusively complimentary of him.  The American people were not allowed to know anything about Obama beyond what he wanted the American people to know about him.  And it turns out that he fabricated a great deal of that past that the media swallowed hook, line and sinker with “composite characters, etc.

We’re told that Obama always said he’d created “composite characters,” etc.  But how on EARTH can the media justify not bothering to examine the REAL people and events that shaped a future president of the United States?  Because that is PRECISELY the argument they use when they dig through every detail of the lives of every Republican presidential candidate.

Do you remember the insane media not only pouring through Sarah Palin’s 24,199 emails, but actually asking the public to help them look for dirt???

Liberals are so rabidly diseased with evil and hypocrisy it is beyond unreal.  When I refer to “Democrats” as actually standing for ”Demonic Bureaucrats,” I am being completely serious.

And just as Obama’s girlfriends are fake, his college records, etc. are sealed in a way that no American president’s records have EVER been sealed.  We don’t get to know ANYTHING about this guy.

Think about it this way: when Herman Cain ran for president, women suddenly crawled out of the woodwork to claim that Cain had sexually harassed them.  And of course they were represented by radical liberal and pro-Democrat shysters like Gloria Allred.  When Cain dropped out – or more accurately, when he was forced out by a media that went batpoop trying to destroy a black man who was TWICE as ”black” and a billion times more American than Barack Obama - suddenly all those women just conveniently went away.  Because of course it was never about “sexual harassment”; it was completely about the Democrat Party using bogus allegations to attack a black Republican very much like the Democrat Ku Klux Klan would have done in the 1860s except without the pointed hoods.

And now it turns out that the only girlfriend Obama ever had in his entire life was fabricated.  And the same media that crawled up Herman Cain’s rectum wouldn’t bother to lift a finger to tell us about the REAL Barack Obama.

Barack Obama does not love America any more than the father from whom Obama got all of his dreams.

And anyone who doesn’t understand that fact is simply a fool.  Particularly since Obama himself has acknowledged it.

Seven Ways Abortion Holocaust Has Made America A Much Worse Place (54 Million Americans Have Been Murdered By Democrats In Abortion Mills)

Fifty-four million human beings are dead.  And the Democrat Party is the party of Holocaust in America.  Period.

Nancy Flanders examined the now-proven utterly bogus claims of abortion proponents at the time they legalized baby-killing in 1973 versus the tragic record of reality:

Seven Ways Abortion has Changed the U.S.
by Nancy Flanders
April 27, 2012

Abortion in the United States has claimed the lives of over 54 million babies since its legalization in 1973 – this we know. It has stolen grandchildren; future friends; future spouses; and future doctors, humanitarians, and congresswomen. It’s an American tragedy, and we are witnessing the beginning stages of its long-awaited demise. Unfortunately, in addition to stealing the lives of innocent children, abortion has caused a great deal of damage to American culture.

1. Children Became a Curse

If there is anything that population control committees and pro-aborts have succeeded at, it is convincing most of America that children are expensive, messy, freedom-stealing dream-squashers. The pro-abortion movement has helped to create a societal shift in our view of children. It took the joy of parenting and turned it into a tedious burden. Pro-aborts and population-control cohorts convinced women that in order to have a life of any value, they must have a career. As a result, children became an afterthought to many women. For example, often, if a woman in college finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, she is convinced she has no choice but to have an abortion because she’s been told that having a baby means she is guaranteed to be unsuccessful in college or stalled in her career. In addition, it seems that more children equals less success, less money, less possessions, and less free time, making children the apparent and ironic ultimate killers of fun.

2. Increased Child Abuse

Despite claims from early and current supporters of abortion that abortion availability leads to less child abuse because unwanted children are not born, the opposite has happened. Abortion has led to the devaluation of human life, especially of children, and therefore children are seen as expendable, undeserving creatures. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sexual abuse of children rose 83% between 1986 and 1993. In addition, physical neglect of children rose 102%, and physical abuse of children rose 42%. Those numbers are staggering and, as reported by Life.org.nz, Dr. Philip G. Ney of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Canada states that abortion is clearly a contributing factor to the rise in abuse because it creates guilt, frustration, and hostility as well as diminishes the significance of the once-unthinkable act of harming the defenseless.

3. Increased Crime Rate

Pro-abortionists have long claimed that access to abortion would lead to a decrease in crime because fewer children would be born to single mothers. But according to a 2007 study by John R. Lott, Jr. of the University of Maryland and John E. Whitley of the Institute for Defense and Analyses, there has actually been an increase in out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. since abortion became legal. In addition, there has been a decrease in the number of children given up for adoption and, therefore, an increase in the number of children being parented by single mothers. According to the study, this has lead to a 7% increase in murder rates. As reported by LifeNews.com, 5% of white children were born out of wedlock from 1965 to 1969, compared to 16% in the 1980s. Black children born out of wedlock increased from 35% to 62% over the same time period. And, unfortunately, due to the struggles of single parenthood, studies show that children of unwed mothers are more likely to become criminals.

4. Increased Discrimination

People with disabilities have been fighting for their rights for decades. They have fought for better access to public buildings, the end of discrimination in the workplace, access to an equal education, and the world’s warped perception that life with a disability is not worth living. Abortion has set the disability civil rights movement back. Even some of those who affiliate themselves with the right to life believe that abortion should be legal when the unborn child is diagnosed with a disability or genetic condition. In fact, 90% of unborn children with Down syndrome are aborted. Children are also being aborted because they have cystic fibrosis, or a cleft palate. It’s discrimination in a society that works to create more accepting, diverse communities. So why are so many of us okay with deciding that a child with a disability would be better off dead?

5. Less Respect for Women

Abortion wasn’t alone on this one; birth control played a huge part as well. Women have become much more sexually aggressive, and it’s touted as a good thing. However, birth control and abortion have helped to create a culture in which women are treated as sex objects. Predators are more likely to get away with sexually abusing their young victims because they can bring them to any abortion clinic with no questions asked. Abortion has opened the door for irresponsible, abusive men to be able to mistreat women more freely.

6. Destruction of the Family

With the lack of respect for women brought on by birth control and abortion comes the destruction of the family. If an unwed couple find themselves pregnant, the man, rather than taking responsibility and marrying his girlfriend, feels that he can just pay for an abortion and be done with “it,” leaving the girlfriend to feel the loss, pain, and guilt. If the woman decides to have and keep the baby, she is now left alone to raise a child and the man is free to live his life as he pleases. In addition, married couples who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant often disagree on how to handle the situation, but the men have no say. If the wife has an abortion, and the husband doesn’t want her to, or vice-versa, the marriage can be destroyed.

7. Opened the Door to Infanticide

In recent news, we have witnessed how abortion has lead to the acceptance of infanticide. Though infanticide in the U.S. is nothing new, the Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article justifying “after-birth abortion.” The article states that newborn babies and unborn babies are both morally irrelevant and only potential persons; therefore, parents should be allowed to euthanize a newborn baby if they decide they don’t want him. Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that after-birth abortion, or infanticide, should be legal for all of the same situations in which abortion is legal, which is for any reason at any time.

Abortion has been a dark cloud over the U.S. for 39 years. In that time we have become a culture of death, a people who collectively takes pleasure in witnessing the pain of other humans on reality television, who obsesses over celebrities with drug problems, and who chooses to selfishly focus on the material objects of our world. We don’t value each other as much, we don’t value our relationships as deeply, and we have become completely desensitized and unsympathetic. Thanks to abortion and the devaluing of human life, we are able to walk past a person dying in the street without a second thought, which is the same as killing the person ourselves.

Yet another liberal utopian myth blasted to smithereens by the truth.

Abortion was the worst thing that ever happened to women.  And that’s a fact.

Let’s never forget the infamous words of liberal Democrat heroine Margaret Sanger:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

If you’re a Democrat, I hope you are spending considerable time preparing your defense for the soon-coming day when you will stand before a just and holy God who will demand that you account for why you voted for the murder of fifty-four million of his precious children.

Is America A Fair And Decent Place? Americans Say Yes, Obama Says America Is Unfair And Discriminatory (And How ‘American’ IS That?)

Here are the results of a new survey documenting just how far from the American people our Marxist-in-Chief truly is:

64% Say U.S. Society is Fair and Decent
Tuesday, March 20, 2012

A sizable majority of voters continues to feel that the United States is generally a fair and decent place, but the number who think President Obama disagrees with them is at its highest level since late 2010.
 
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that American society is generally fair and decent. One-in-four voters (26%) disagrees and says society in this country is unfair and discriminatory. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
 
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 11-12, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Rasmussen also reports that 46% of voters think obama views america as unfair and discriminatory:

What we are getting in America is the fruits of a man who spent over twenty years of his life listening to a “reverend” who said things like, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

If You Happen To See This Pin, Snap To It And Render Your Respect To The Wearer

It’s called the Gold Star pin; it is an award that is given to family members of a veteran who was killed in action:

It turns out that most Americans don’t even recognize it or know what it means when they see it.

That’s a shame.  By which I mean a dishonorable shame.

An article titled, “Sacrifice Isn’t Shared” posted by PJMom (I’m just guessing she’s the mother of an Air Force Pararescue Jumper) makes my guts churn:

Gallup surveyed attitudes among military. What shocked me wasn’t veteran attitudes toward Obama, but the disparity of service among generations:

• 75% of 80-89 year-old men served
• 60% of 70-79 year-olds
• 49% of 60-69 year-olds
• 21% of 50-59 year-olds
• 19% of 40-49 year-olds
• 13% of 30-39 year-olds
• 8% of 18-29 year-olds

The drop in service among Boomers marks the 60s cultural revolution more explicitly than anything else: who cares about serving thee when I can just serve me, me, me? It’s pretty obvious by the ever-dwindling percentage of veterans that boomers passed along their selfless mentality to their own progeny, no? Serve the country? How passé.

The 5,000 service members who have died in the wars of the past decade have wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. The impact ripples. But families tend to raise and shoulder the burden of service. Society at large doesn’t feel it, not with 8% of 18-29 year-olds serving in the military.

UPDATE: Via Hot Air, a tribute to the Greatest Generation who served and the pilots who donate time and resources to ensure the veterans see their memorial. If you want to be humbled, visit the WWII Memorial and watch the octogenarians awed by memories of long ago.

The thing that made me gasp was the sight of that diminishing table of military service.  There was a time when almost everyone had served their country; now almost nobody has.

It makes me just sick that so few have suffered so much for so long to stand up for the rest of us.  And when they are killed doing their duty on our behalf, we don’t even notice or care.

Look at that pin.  Memorize it.

Only those who have lost a spouse, mother, father, child or step-child to combat are authorized to wear that pin.

And if you are fortunate enough to come across someone wearing it, please stop that person and do your best to tell them from the bottom of your heart that you are thankful for that soldier, airman, sailor or Marine who gave what Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion” to their country.

No one should be more honored in America than those who gave their lives in defense of this nation and the families that mourn their loss.

It’s the least you can do to a family member who may be RIGHTLY wondering if this country was truly worth sacrificing for in the face of such shocking apathy.

Obama Orders American Citizen MURDERED Without Due Process

Rise up, ye liberals who demonized George Bush (see also here) for his “outrages.”  Demand that Barack Obama resign from office.  Do not vote for him for any reason. 

Be consistent for at least one time in your entire worthless lives.

But most of you are genuine hypocrites to the very cores of your tiny little shriveled cockroach souls.  So you damn Bush and praise Obama for the same stuff.  It’s just who you are.

There is this tiny, infinitesimal percent of liberals for whom the following is any real problem.  And even that tiny fraction of a percent of you hypocrites are going to vote for Obama anyway.  Because you are amoral slime and you frankly disgust me:

Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki’s Killing
by Carrie Johnson
September 30, 2011

Within moments of Anwar al-Awlaki’s death, debate erupted over whether the U.S. had a legal basis to target one of its own citizens with deadly force.

Last year, President Obama put Awlaki on a secret list that gave the intelligence community a green light to target him in a deadly drone attack.

The move bothered human-rights advocates so much that they sued, enlisting Awlaki’s father as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“The government should not have the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation,” says Hina Shamsi, who leads the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

But the Justice Department responded that Awlaki wasn’t just any American. He transformed himself from a cleric who inspired young Muslims with words to an operational leader who helped equip terrorist plotters with deadly bombs.

A judge ultimately threw out the ACLU lawsuit, saying it involved state secrets and raised political questions that should be answered in Congress, not the courts.

All those questions came roaring back again today with word of Awlaki’s death at the hands of the U.S. government.

“The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear,” says John Bellinger, a lawyer in the State Department under President George W. Bush.

After 10 years of talking about legal authority when it comes to terrorism, he says, there’s still no international consensus on the legality of drone strikes — and no clear precedent for using those drones to kill a U.S. citizen.

“Wherever they are in the world, they have a constitutional right to due process,” Bellinger says. “But due process doesn’t necessarily mean an adversarial judicial hearing.”

So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn’t have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.

Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki’s rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Ken Anderson, who teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law and follows U.S. policy on drones, says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target — U.S. citizen or not.

“The U.S has always seen somebody who is planning attacks against the United States as a lawful target,” Anderson says.
Either because Awlaki presented an imminent threat to American citizens or because he had become an enemy fighting alongside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Anderson says, he could be seen as a lawful target.

Anderson says in the legal analysis, the place where a target is located matters too.

“[The government's] standard is we’re not going to be targeting somebody in London or Paris or someplace that’s got the effective rule of law,” Anderson says.

But by hiding in Yemen, Awlaki couldn’t be served with a subpoena or easily taken into custody, putting himself in a different category.

The Justice Department wouldn’t talk about specific operations or individuals. Nor did it want to describe the process the government used to put Awlaki on a target list.

One administration official did agree to speak in general about targeting terrorists. “We’re not commenting on any specific individual or operation,” the official said. “As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.”

Experts say that while it might not be required under the law, it would make good political sense to share more information with Congress and the public. Awlaki’s case might be the first case to present these difficult questions, but it won’t be the last.

I would say that I’m on Obama’s side on this one.  These rat bastards declared war on our women and children, and we should hunt them down in every single cockroach hole on the planet and we should kill them.  But then there’s the embarrassing little fact that Barack Obama repeatedly demonized George Bush for the very sorts of things that he is now himself routinely doing as president.  Which qualifies him as a liar without shame or honor or integrity.

Barack Obama came to power on lofty rhetoric that was an abject lie.  And from the moment he came to power he has cynically betrayed everything he said and lied to every single American whether that American voted for him or not.

Obama demonized Bush on Guantanamo Bay.  The weak, posturing fool swore that he would shut it down within ONE YEAR of taking office.  Now he was either the worst kind of cynical and frankly truly depraved liar – and therefore ought to be driven out of office – or he was so incompetent and so fundamentally ignorant of the job of a president that he ought to be driven out of office.  You choose which.  Either way, Guantanamo Bay continues to be a shining example of the fact that Barack Obama is an abject disgrace to presidential leadership.

He did the same damn thing on issue after issue: whether it was the Patriot Act, domestic eavesdropping, rendition, you name it, he violated his word and did the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

Just take a look at Democrats.  Consider what they said about Iraq and WMD before Bush attacked Iraq:

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

Then consider how they betrayed their own previous statements to attack a president at war.  Like the traitors they are.  Then consider how they praised themselves for the same exact war they had been for before they hypocritically turned against it as Vice President Joe Biden said:

“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.”

The sheer unadulterated hypocrisy and chutzpah of the entire Democrat Party is mind-boggling.

It’s long past time that liberals fell flat on their face and openly admitted that they were treasonous pieces of garbage for attacking George Bush the way they did.

If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

A friend of mine (we’ve corresponded enough and seen the world the same way enough that I believe “friend” applies) from Sweden commented on my article, “Barack Obama, America’s First Downgraded President.”  In part of his comment, he said of his native Europe:

The leftwing liberal press in Sweden is doing everything to blame the crisis in the U.S. on the Tea Party movement and on the Conservatives’ refusal to raise taxes. As if the Europe’s high taxes are of any help in the Euro zone?

Left Liberal reforms require increased taxes, which then are followed by new leftwing liberal reforms that require even higher taxes, and so on. When the politicians begin to solve problems with tax increases, there will be no stopping as more and more people switch from financing their wellbeing by themselves, to expecting the state to offer it for free or almost free.

Obama and his supporters are leftwing liberals who want to transform the American system to a European kind of model, which means high taxes, big public sector and many more living on welfare and on the state’s expense. I say – do never go along with it, it does not solve any problems with overspending and using taxpayers money without any respect for its actual value.

In those European countries, where it is not possible to charge high taxes from the population, politicians “solve” it by taking large loans. You could say that the socialist and leftwing liberal politicians buy their positions of power with borrowed money. Now it is no longer possible. Europe is full of Obamas and Pelosis, and these have not only ruined their own countries but are about to ruin even Germany, Holland and probably also us in Sweden.

Europe taxes the bejeezus out of EVERYTHING:  “Take a look at the current European tax rates below which range from 59.6% to 83%. The European VAT tax (Government Sales Tax) ranges from 16% to 25%.”  And that’s just for starters; they also pay at least TWICE as much on gasoline and diesel because they massively tax energy, too.  And of course there are just ALL KINDS of other taxes and regulations that amount to massive hidden taxes in the Eurozone.

Democrats are out there just flat out rabidly DEMONIZING Republicans and particularly Tea Party caucus members as “terrorists” because we wouldn’t hike taxes.  In the article my friend Penumbra added his own insights to, I had said the following:

Obama and the Democrats are like addicts, blaming everybody but themselves for their failures and the chaos and disaster those failures have caused. The obvious fact of the matter is that the stock market took a huge hit for two reasons which both have “Democrat Party” written all over them: 1) the utter failure of European socialism at a time when Obama and the Democrats are still determined to follow this completely failed model here:

“Markets worldwide were on edge over fiscal weakness in Italy and Spain and the eurozone’s ability to contain more crisis, as the two countries’ borrowing costs surged in recent days.”

and 2) the “let’s just create more money out of thin air” model otherwise known by the technical name of quantitative easing (i.e., QE1, QE2, and apparently soon-to-be QE3). Here’s how THAT very NON-Tea Party bankrupt and bankrupting policy will end:

We have officially crossed into the realm of abject fiscal and moral lunacy under Obama. We are now borrowing more than our entire economy is worth. Obama is borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar he is spending; he is deficit-spending $4.1 billion every single DAY; he has increased the size of government by 27% over George Bush (according to the CBO) and he is utterly determined to keep spending more and more and more.

In May of this year, Obama submitted a budget that would have added $12 trillion to our debt. It was so insane in so many ways that not even one single DEMOCRAT would vote for it in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Obama’s reckless and immoral budget failed by a vote of 97-0.

That’s not some right-wing talking point. That’s the TRUTH. Obama is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace.

Let’s take a moment to contemplate what Obama has done:

• Trippled budget deficits since he took office
• Gave us a failed $862 Billion stimulus package that the CBO said actually cost taxpayers $3.27 TRILLION.
• Spent tens of billions in GM/Chrysler bailouts that were basically fascist (the corporatist state). See here and here.
• Increased the size of government by 25%
• Gave us chronic unemployment at Great Depression levels of 18%
• Gave us a Debt/GDP ratio WORSE thanthe Great Depression
• That in addition to two EXTRA wars in addition to the two he promised to get us out of and lied. The Libya war that he said would take “days, not weeks” has now dragged on for more than five months with no sign of ending
• And now he’s given us a credit downgrade for the first time in American history

Obama will say ANYTHING. He is an abject liar and a fool who says one thing and then does another before saying something else entirely. Unfortunately, the pathologically biased mainstream media reports Obama’s constantly shifting rhetoric as if it had anything whatsoever to do with actual reality.

As an example, Obama repeatedly called for huge tax hikes in this debt ceiling deal on top of the $500 billion in tax hikes he got as part of ObamaCare. But listen to his own words in 2009: “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

The fact of history is crystal clear: Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues. Versus tax hikes, which reduce revenues and reduce GDP. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.”

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

And now Obama wants to do the same thing with corporate jets that previous Democrats did to yachts. And they only people who will get hurt if Obama gets his way are the companies that hire people to build and maintain those jets and the workers themselves who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods. And the only thing that is stopping this rape of businesses, workers and the economy that depends on workers and businesses are Republicans. Even if many of the very people who are most hurt by Democrats Marxist class warfare policies are too stupid to know it.

It’s not enough to say that the Democrats’ thesis is false; the Democrats’ thesis has been utterly refuted before the world’s very eyes in Europe.  Our problem isn’t that we’re not enough like Europe; the very failure of Europe itself proves that our problem is that we’re already TOO MUCH like Europe.

We’ve got the second highest corporate tax rate in the entire world right now; and the United States is literally more communist than China now in many ways.  I submit that you must have both a mental and a moral problem in order to think raising those taxes and increasing regulations will somehow make our problems go away.  And yet that is precisely what Democrats foolishly believe.

‘No Risk’ Of US Credit Downgrade? Clueless Timothy Geithner Has GOT To Go

Let the words of Turbo Tax (so named because the man who would be charged with enforcing US tax laws and policy failed to pay his own damned taxes and then blamed it on Turbo Tax) Timothy Geithner now resonate throughout the land:

That now proven-to-be-utterly stupid pronouncement was not what people who had something of an actual clue were saying prior to the debt deal:

Analysis: U.S. credit downgrade ‘inevitable’
By Daniel Stone | The Daily Beast – Mon, Jul 25, 2011

Only seven days stand between the U.S. and the effects of a credit default. But a downgrade of the nation’s stellar AAA credit rating seems a lot more likely, and a lot sooner.

The White House had been alerted repeatedly over the past month by rating agencies that without a strong, long-term plan to restructure the country’s debt, they would lower America’s credit rating as soon as this Friday, according to two officials familiar with the process. The White House was warned that the deal would have to be significant—and not a short-term fix over the next few days to avoid a credit drop.

Which makes it worth asking: Just what DOES this fool actually understand?  And why on earth should anyone believe anything he says after this???

Notice that the following article was questioning Geithner’s basic intelligence well before the S & P decision to downgrade the US credit rating Friday at a time when maybe Geithner could have turned out to be correct.

Geithner Downgrades His Own Credibility to Junk: Jonathan Weil
By Jonathan Weil- Apr 20, 2011 4:00 PM PT

Fox Business reporter Peter Barnesbegan his televised interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner two days ago with this question: “Is there a risk that the United States could lose its AAA credit rating? Yes or no?”

Geithner’s response: “No risk of that.”

“No risk?” Barnes asked.

“No risk,” Geithner said.

It’s enough to make you wonder: How could Geithner know this to be true? The short answer is he couldn’t.

All you have to do is read the research report Standard & Poor’s published on April 18 about its sovereign-credit rating for the U.S., and you will see it estimated the risk of a downgrade quite succinctly. “We believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years,” said S&P, which reduced its outlook on the government’s debt to “negative” from“stable.”

There you have it: Geithner says the chance of a downgrade is zero. S&P says the odds it will cut its rating might be greater than one out of three.  So who are you going to believe? Geithner? Or the people at S&P who actually will be deciding what S&P will do about S&P’s own rating of U.S. sovereign debt?

It would be one thing to express the view that a downgrade would be unwarranted, or that the chance of it happening is remote. Either of these positions would be defensible. Geithner went beyond that and staked out an absolutist stance that reeks of raw arrogance: There is no risk a rating cut will occur. He left no room for a trace of a possibility, ever.

Battling Barney

The mystery is why Geithner would say such a thing. What’s he going to do if S&P or some other rating company winds up disagreeing with him? Send Barney Frank to beat them up?  The problem for leaders who make indefensible claims like this one is that, after a while, nobody knows whether to believe anything they say. Just remember all those government officials inGreece, Ireland and Portugal who kept saying their countries didn’t need bailouts, long after it became clear they did.

This was the same answer Geithner gave during an ABC News interview in February 2010, when asked if the U.S. might lose its AAA rating. “Absolutely not,” he said. “That will never happen to this country.” So, an asteroid could destroy the entire Eastern seaboard 100 years from now. And, in the world according to Geithner, we’re supposed to believe America’s top rating would be safe.

Perhaps Geithner would be well-positioned to make such assessments if he were the only person on the planet with the authority to grade sovereign debt — and if there were zero risk that he would ever die. Not only is Geithner mortal, he doesn’t even work for a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

[...]

Timothy Geithner needs to go.  He needs to go like three years ago.

Geithner is the epitome of just how profoundly out-of-touch and arrogant Barack Obama and his failed administration is.

Case closed.  Geithner has got to go.

Tipping Point Crossed: US Borrowing Exceeds 100% Of Entire U.S. Gross Domestic Product

The United States of America probably just passed a point of no return.

We now officially owe more than the entire annual output of 307 million Americans.

US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury
AFP – 8/3/2011

US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government’s debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.
 
Treasury borrowing jumped Tuesday, the data showed, immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling as the country’s spending commitments reached a breaking point and it threatened to default on its debt.
 
The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, over end-2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion, and putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.
 
Public debt subject to the official debt limit — a slightly tighter definition — was $14.53 trillion as of the end of Tuesday, rising from the previous official cap of $14.29 trillion a day earlier.
 
Treasury had used extraordinary measures to hold under the $14.29 trillion cap since reaching it on May 16, while politicians battled over it and over addressing the country’s bloating deficit.
 
The official limit was hiked $400 billion on Tuesday and will be increased in stages over the next 18 months.
 
The last time US debt topped the size of its annual economy was in 1947 just after World War II. By 1981 it had fallen to 32.5 percent.
 
Ratings agencies have warned the country to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio quickly or facing losing its coveted AAA debt rating.
 
Moody’s said Tuesday that the government needed to stabilize the ratio at 73 percent by 2015 “to ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a AAA rating.”

And that’s really not the one-fourteenth of it.

America doesn’t owe $14.5 trillion; it owes more like $200 trillion:

News from globeandmail.com
The scary real U.S. government debt
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
NEIL REYNOLDS

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling.

Prof. Kotlikoff says: “The IMF is saying that, to close this fiscal gap [by taxation], would require an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal income taxes, our corporate taxes and all other federal taxes.

“America’s fiscal gap is enormous – so massive that closing it appears impossible without immediate and radical reforms to its health care, tax and Social Security systems – as well as military and other discretionary spending cuts.”

[...]

At this point, it is really only a matter of time before this most selfish, depraved and vile of all generations that elected the most evil president in its nations history collapses on top of its children.

Republicans most certainly did try – and will continue to try – to keep this nation from slitting its collectivist throat and collapsing.  But the demonic Democrat Party demonized them at every turn, and the demonization takes its toll.  The American people don’t support doing the right thing, the necessary thing.  They have stage four soul cancer and they want cotton candy rather than chemotherapy.

The Democrat Party is the party of destruction.  We are less than five years away from Medicare going bankrupt.  But what do they do?  They demonize any attempt to save the system, and essentially demand that the system collapse so that it can help no one.  And they do that because they know that the people are too stupid to know the truth and too depraved to have any desire of bothering to want to find out.  Republicans propose solutions; democrats lie and fearmonger and demonize Republicans, and stupid and depraved people believe the poisonous propaganda.

And then Republicans buckle and cave.

And this has happened over and over again while America races along on the fast track to suicide and hell.

One of the facts that has been pointed out many times is that America is not in Bible prophecy.  I used to wonder why.  Now I know the answer: because America won’t exist in a very short time.  Demonic liberals will collapse this nation – in a process that started with FDR’s incredibly lethal and incredibly infectious policies – and there will be no United States of America to BE in the last days.  There will only be an insignificant banana republic – which will exist as the laughingstock of the world – where America used to be.

Democrats couldn’t care less if America isn’t in Bible prophecy because they neither honor God or His Word (see my response to Obama’s mocking and distortion of the Word of God here, fwiw).  And as a result of Democrat ignorance and hatred of the Bible, we are even now contributing significantly to the coming of the Antichrist and the last days that we ourselves won’t survive to witness.  Liberals have been attacking our Christian foundations for over one hundred years in their effort to impose their utopian socialist schemes and we are losing our liberty at a frenetic pace as a result. Without the self-evident truth and its corresponding God-given rights that the left long ago rejected, all we have is the tyranny of powerful elites who become self-appointed dictators who get to decide what’s true and what is politically incorrect, who wins and who loses and who is allowed to be free.  Not only has the socialism that the American left embraces failed every single time it has every been tried everywhere on the planet, but in most cases it has led to an unparalleled crushing of the human spirit.

The tragedy is that the disaster that will surely soon overtake America will have been the most foreseeable and the most preventable one to ever overtake a civilization in the history of the human race.  Anyone with a mind, a memory and a conscience can see what is about to happen; but in the future, just as there was in 2008, there will be enough depraved Americans to tip the scale for the sweet-sounding policies that will result in America’s decline, destruction and death.

This is God damn America.  And God damn America deserves to die, and die it surely will.

We might be able to shrug off the cancer of liberalism for a short time and prolong the life of our nation.  But liberalism is a cancer of the soul, and ultimately the cancer of liberalism will kill America.

And the line that we just crossed as a nation with barely so much as a “ho-hum” is a disastrous line to cross, indeed.

Does Barack Obama Accept That Ultimately, He Is Responsible For This Gun Walking Fiasco? Should He Resign?

The media coverage of Rupert Murdoch (whose media corporation owns Fox News among many other assets) reminds me of the days when George Bush was president and the media had someone to attack.

I have seen non-stop coverage of this “hacking scanda” (which has exactly WHAT to do with the USA?) since the developments first broke out.  And there is a savage happy glee to the media “outrage” over the scandal.  The media’s on the side of “journalistic outrage” and Rupert Murdoch is routinely depcited as unwilling to acknowledge any personal responsibility.

The media is on top of every new development.  Every day marks a new front page story.  Outrage abounds.

I haven’t seen coverage like this since the Bush days.  Because that was the last time the media really went after somebody to try to take him down.

There was TWICE as much coverage of the Murdoch/”hacking scandal” as there was of the debt ceiling crisis in the New York Times, for example.  At last this biased propaganda rag has a target they can really attack.

The aspect of the coverage that is now getting the most media flurry and fury is the question that Rupert Murdoch was asked:

“Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?”

And Murdoch’s flat “No” was followed by a renewed gasp of sheer outrage from the mainstream media machine.

If the mainstream media had any honesty or integrity whatsoever, they would be treating Rupert Murdoch exactly like they’re treating Barack Obama, or they would treat Barack Obama exactly like they’re treating Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s my question: has ANYONE in the mainstream media EVER ONCE asked President Obama the question, “Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?” related to the various “gunwalking” scandals in which government agents under Obama administration control allowed thousands of deadly firearms to get into the hands of criminal drug cartels in at least two foreign countries resulting in the murder of scores of citizens including American agents???

See my article on that here.  This scandal is HUGE.  There is NO WAY Obama couldn’t have had any input whatsoever into a massive federal program involving several federal agencies at multiple locations that put thousands of guns into the hands of criminals in at least two foreign countries.

And now see here:

WASHINGTON — The head of the Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has admitted that his agency,  in at least one instance, allowed sales of high-powered weapons without  intercepting them — and he accuses his superiors at the Justice  Department of stonewalling Congress to protect political appointees in the  scandal over those decisions.

How would Obama answer that question if some mainstream media propagandist actually asked him?

Should he not say that, as president of the United States and the commander in chief, he is clearly “ultimately responsible?”  And should he not therefore resign from office to accept that responsibility?

This scandal hardly makes Rupert Murdoch look good (although his company News Corp. had a huge day on the stock market as investors clearly liked what they heard):

STAYING PUT: Rupert Murdoch said he was the best person to clean up News Corp. Investors agreed.

BIG DAY: News Corp.’s stock had its best day since the phone-hacking scandal broke, rising more than 5 percent Tuesday while Murdoch and his son and deputy, James, testified before a committee of the British Parliament in London

But you know who looks far, far worse in this?  The mainstream media, which once again proves they are hatchet men for anyone smacking of conservatism while mindlessly protecting their own leftwingers from the same sort of criticism they continually heap on their opponents all while claiming they are “objective.”

Just to provide a recent example of this profound liberal bias (is “today” recent enough?), here’s one dated 7/20/2011:

A Politico reporter who often penned stories about Sarah Palin and other  Republicans has quit journalism to work with the Democratic Party in Arizona,  sources tell The Daily Caller.

That reporter, Andy Barr, has covered national politics for the publication  since 2008. Barr leaving to help elect Democrats will likely fan the flames of  critics who say Politico has a liberal bias.

Politico – which sent a literal act to pretend he was a “reporter” to cover Republicans for three years - has a liberal bias?  Say it aint so!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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