Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

One of my favorite programs is the Wall Street Journal’s “Journal Editorial Report” which appears on Fox News.  This segment helps you understand why:

When we come back, Paul Ryan takes on the religious left after 90 Georgetown professors attack his budget proposal as going against Catholic social teaching. Would Jesus Christ really have favored big government?
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WISC., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Since we meet here today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it is important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the church’s social teaching. Simply put, I don’t believe the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.

 (END VIDEO CLIP)
 
GIGOT: That was the House budget committee chairman, Paul Ryan, last week delivering an address at Georgetown University. The Wisconsin Republican has come under fire from some Catholics on the left who claimed the blue print goes against the church’s social teaching. Ninety Georgetown faculty and administrators sent a letter to Ryan in advance of the appearance that read, in part, “We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”
 
Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor, Dan Henninger, and columnist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
 
Dan, we’ll put it on the table, we are all Catholics here, grew up with Catholic social teaching.
 
DAN HENNINGER, COLUMNIST & DEPUTY EDITOR: Right.
 
GIGOT: To my mind, the news is not so much Jesuits or Georgetown faculty by conservatives. That is an old story. The news is that Ryan is willing to mix it up in return. Why is the debate important?
 
HENNINGER: The debate is important for — I tell you, Paul, it is important for reasons that both Ryan’s critics and Paul Ryan cite, both that letter and his talk said the same thing. One in six Americans are in poverty. Now, the Great Society started in 1965, creating programs to address poverty.
 
GIGOT: Lyndon Johnson.
 
HENNINGER: Lyndon Johnson.
 
GIGOT: Expansion of government.
 
HENNINGER: 50 years later, one in six Americans are in poverty? After spending trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. Now Ryan is saying, first, we need accountability over why that has happened. Second, the three main programs — two main programs were created then, Medicare and Medicaid, adding in Social Security, the three major entitlements, the costs are so large that they drain money away from other programs for the poor.
 
GIGOT: Right.
 
HENNINGER: And Paul Ryan is saying we have to look at this and start making some decisions about where that is going. And that’s what he’s asking his critics to come and talk to him about.
 
GIGOT: This is what the late Senator, a Democrat, and a Catholic, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to make the case to me that — he said, Democrats should reform entitlements for seniors and Medicare and Social Security because, as Dan said, they are growing a huge wedge in the federal government. They will soak up, if trends continue, almost all the spending there is, the money there is, and there would be no money left for child care, for example, or education, or transportation, much less defense — good liberal purposes.
 
MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY: But, Paul, why are you talking about facts?
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
Facts are not what the left has used to grow the government to what it is right now.
 
GIGOT: That’s one my big flaws.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
O’GRADY: Really, you have to stop that.
 
Paul Ryan is freaking these guys out because he is taking their language and using it against them. He talks about how government dissolves the common good of society, how it dishonors the dignity of the human person. They think they own that language. And they think that language justifies big government. And he is saying, no, what you have done with this big government has actually undermined the things that Catholic teaching is supposed to be about. And that is why they are upset about it. If Paul Ryan, God forbid, gets the morale high ground, which they think they own, they will have to go back to the facts. And the facts will not support their position.
 
GIGOT: Important point, a lot of Republicans and conservatives tend to shrink, at least in my experience, from moral arguments. Look at my failing here, brining — talking practical points in fact.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
But if — so you leave them a monopoly on the moral rhetoric, which is very power of in politics, on the left. Ryan is saying, I will meet you on that same battlefield.
 
HENNINGER: Well, he has created a phrase, which is the immorality of debt. And, in fact, Pope Benedict himself apparently said that if you live with debt that begins do impede the government’s ability to provide basic services, then you are living in untrue — Benedict is obviously talking about Europe.
 
GIGOT: Right.

HENNINGER: And Europe has had a tremendous commitment to social justice and social programs, and now we see Europe as a case study in struggling with trying to pay for commitments that simply they can no longer afford. And that is the issue that Paul Ryan is trying to raise. And he now is putting it in moral terms. And there is a moral issue there. And I think he deserve a good-faith answer.
 
GIGOT: If you look at Europe, one thing that we can see is when you have a debt crisis, and you finally have to do something about it, who suffers the most and first? It isn’t the Georgetown faculty. 

(LAUGHTER)
 
It is the poor, who have their budgets and spending cut?

This is precisely the kind of moral argument that I have been advocating for on this blog.  Here’s an example:

So let’s read the Bible and see what it says.

First there’s that little passage in 1 Samuel that warns about the danger of a socialist king who would seize what rightly belonged to the people if they wickedly chose big government instead of trusting in God (as I previously have pointed out):

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one. The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting? God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God. Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him. Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes. A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

It doesn’t sound as if the king whom we are told again and again – ”he will take” – is a good thing. Except on Al Sharpton’s and demonic Democrats warped and evil account of the passage.

Then there’s Jesus, who contrasted what the government confiscated with what belonged to God:

“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” — Luke 20:24-25

Notice that what belongs to God isn’t also described as belonging to Caesar. What Jesus is MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAYING here is that giving unto Caesar is in any way, shape or form tantamount to giving to God. Unless, that is, you are a Democrat (i.e., a demonic bureaucrat), in which case worshipping the State is identical to worshipping God.

When Democrats want to let Obama take more of what belongs to us, they are giving their god his due, not the God of the Bible.

As you could see by examining the links, I took part of that argument from a previous article titled, “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”

So when liberals demand the expansion of government they are not being “pro-God”; they are being ANTI-God.  And it also turns out to be the case that they are tragically anti-poor, too.

In another article, I wrote the following to document how Democrats have undermined charity in favor of socialism – while being anything but “charitable” in their own lives – while hurting the people they claimed they were helping:

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

A lot of Americans like Social Security.  But they wouldn’t if they knew the facts about it the massive debt it has compiled and the alternatives to it – proposed by Democrats, for that matter – that would have been demonstrated to have been FAR better.

Obama’s policies have sent real inflation (things like food and gasoline) skyrocketing.  And who does that hurt more: the rich or the poor???  Let me assure you that it’s not rich people who are being forced to choose between putting gas in their cars so they can make it to work or buying food for their families.

Obama and his Democrat lackeys rammed minimum wage hikes through.  Conservatives said it would severely hurt teen employment.  And the documented reality is that it has massively hurt young workers EXACTLY AS CONSERVATIVES PREDICTED.

It is no surprise that the economy is in the worst condition since the LAST TIME we let a socialist run it.

Just as it is absolutely no surprise that poverty is the highest it has been in at least 52 years – and frankly in HISTORY – under this failed president whose only ability is the ability to lie and slander and demagogue.

Obama Leeches Away The Once Most Sacred Institution Of Marriage In God Damn America

“Not God bless America.  No, no, no, God damn America!” - Rev Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual leader for more than 20 years before the “reverend” became politically inconvenient

Barack Obama in 2008:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix. (Applause.)

Obama just kicked God out of the mix and replaced Him with himself:

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

God damn America!  GOD DAMN AMERICA!

The line that Obama’s position on gay marriage is “evolving” is a lie.  Barack Obama supported gay marriage as early as 1996.  And then his campaign LIED about it.  It was NEVER that Obama’s views on marriage “evolved”; it was ALWAYS that Obama cynically and deceitfully lied to the American people in 2008 when he assured the American people he believed something that he did not in fact believe.

So much for “Obama, as a Christian.”  That “evolved” straight to the bottom level hell with everything else about this incredibly wicked man.

What does the Bible have to say about embracing homosexuality?

- “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” — Leviticus 18:22

- “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

- “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”  — Romans 1:24-28

Well, I suppose you can read it either way.  Maybe God just adores homosexuality.  It’s just not clear.

IF YOU ARE A DEMON-POSSESSED FOOL, that is.

But what do you expect from the party that gave America fifty-four million murdered babies while they call themselves “pro-child”???

Younger Americans support gay marriage by a wide margin.  Younger Americans are also the least likely of every generation of Americans to bother getting married at all.  Which is pretty much another way of saying that the people who most want to piss on marriage support pissing on marriage:

Marriage Obsolete?
By JESSICA HOPPER
Nov. 18, 2010

Not only are more marriages on the rocks these days, so is marriage itself, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.

A survey of 2,691 Americans done in association with Time magazine found that nearly four in 10 Americans think marriage is becoming obsolete. That’s an 11 percent spike since 1978, when Time asked the same question.

“Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn’t dominate family life like it used to,” Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at John Hopkins University, told the Associated Press.

Younger people are leading the way in redefining what marriage means. Forty-four percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 saw marriage as obsolete, compared to 32 percent of those 65 and older.

Other groups more likely to see marriage as a fading institution included blacks, at 44 percent, those with a high school diploma or less, at 44 percent, and people who made $30,000 or less a year, at 48 percent.

Young People Marrying Less and Less

Census data have shown that younger people are marrying less and less, and when they marry, they’re generally older. [...]

Every group that most votes Democrat is the same group who most thinks marriage is obsolete and the same people who support gay marriage.  The same people who believe that marriage is obsolete are the same people who say that homosexuals should be able to do the thing they think is pointless.

If marriage is the sacred union ordained by God between one man and one woman, then marriage is vital and essential to the health of a society and culture; if marriage is an arbitrary thing that can be redefined to mean whatever a morally-velocitized culture thinks at any given time, then it truly is obsolete and why bother.

When you look at the countries that have the highest support for gay marriage and the lowest marriage rates, guess what?  They’re basically the same.

No civilization in recorded history has EVER embraced homosexual marriage, anecdotal stories aside.  The world today on the verge of the coming Antichrist and the mark of the beast and literal hell on earth has become more openly depraved than any civilization in the history of the world.

Here’s the bottom line. Homosexuals want what married couples have. It is fools’ gold; they can NEVER have it. Because the same God who blesses marriage and family hates homosexuality and literally calls it an “abomination.” Homosexuals CAN’T have the blessings of marriage; ALL THEY CAN DO IS FURTHER UNDERMINE AND DEGRADE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE THAT IS ALREADY COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SO MANY OTHER VILE LIBERAL POLICIES.

Homosexuals, further, argue that they are being denied the human right to marry.  BULLCRAP!  A homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him, the same as me.  The fact that he finds loathsome what God ordained doesn’t mean that marriage should be radically redefined.

Homosexuality has been a plague on the condition of the world in so many different ways it is unreal.  It is a biologically FILTHY lifestyle.  Anybody who tries to argue that homosexuality is not a gay disease is simply either a liar or a fool or a lying fool.  Homosexuality is basically worse for life expectancy than cancer.

Not God bless America.  God Damn America.

Marriage Amendment Wins BIG In North Carolina While Obama ‘Wins’ Really, REALLY Small In NC’s And WV’s Democrat Primaries

To frame what follows into proper perspective, North Carolina is a state that Obama won in 2008.

As Joe Biden told America that he and basically his boss couldn’t tell the difference between a mother and father and their children and a pair of gay guys holding hands, this is what just happened in North Carolina (as of the most recent count, the amendment passed by a 61-39% vote).

I’m posting the MSNBC version because you can almost hear the whining tone:

North Carolina marriage amendment could impact gay and straight couples
By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc.com

Updated at 10:30 p.m. ET: North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday night banning gay marriage and – going a step further than most other states with an anti-gay marriage amendment – scrapping civil unions for gay and straight couples.

The state becomes the last southern state to approve an anti-gay marriage amendment and joins 30 others with similar measures. Incomplete returns Tuesday night showed the amendment passing by 60 percent of the vote.

The amendment, also known as Amendment 1, would make marriage the only legal domestic union that would be valid in the state. But opponents say the measure is unnecessary because a state statute has banned gay marriage in North Carolina since 1996. They say domestic partners – both straight and gay – and their children could lose health benefits.

Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because “those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the legislature.”

Lee watched the election results at a party in Raleigh with grassroots coordinators and coalition members. When it became clear the amendment had passed, they cut a vanilla wedding cake topped with a figurine of a bride and groom.

“If you looked at a map of our country, you saw North Carolina as the only one in the southeast without an amendment preserving marriage between a man and a woman,” Lee said after the results had come in. “North Carolina had a target on her back.”

Half of Americans support gay marriage in new Gallup Poll

To overturn the amendment approved Tuesday night, the legislature would have to overrule the amendment by a three-fifths vote and get voter approval. Before the amendment passed, a judge or legislative majority could have overturned the statute.

“This puts up a bigger barrier,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University.

Dinan said the amendment was introduced after Republicans won a majority in both houses of the state legislature in 2010.

“It’s been a pretty easy win in every southern state,” Dinan said. “It never got to the ballot in North Carolina because Democratic legislatures never let it get there.”

Dinan said the amendment’s impacts would not be immediate.

“The one place it could make a difference is in eight or nine cities in North Carolina that give out insurance benefits to same-sex couples,” Dinan said. “Lawyers might have to start taking a real close look at those insurance benefits that are given out and they might have to change those.”

Melissa and Libby Hodges of Durham could be among those affected by the amendment. They worry their 5-year-old daughter may lose her health benefits, as she is covered by Libby, who cannot legally adopt her. By Tuesday afternoon, the moms had filled out paperwork for private insurance.

Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families said he worries that the eight or nine cities that currently offer domestic partnership benefits to public employees may drop those benefits if the amendment passes.

“We know the consequences that we’re listing, but there’s a whole bunch of unintended consequences that we probably haven’t even thought of yet that will come up in the courts after this,” Kennedy said.

Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment, said children of gay parents in other states where similar amendments have passed have not lost their health insurance. He said he doubts that would happen in North Carolina.

Lee said the amendment would “in no way impact domestic violence protections, child custody or end of life desires.” 

Voting began early Tuesday on the marriage amendment and candidate races in the 2012 primary, but 512,000 people – or 8 percent of registered voters – already have participated through absentee ballot, according to the State Board of Elections. That record turnout surpassed even the 2008 primary, which included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, according to Democracy North Carolina.

Several high-profile figures – from former President Bill Clinton to evangelist Billy Graham – and national advocacy groups have weighed in on the amendment.

“We’re having a great debate about marriage in this country, and it’s not at all settled about which way we’re going to go,” said Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment.

In only one of the 30 states is the constitutional amendment facing a challenge: In California, where a federal judge’s decision to overturn it was set aside pending appellate review. The last state to approve a constitutional amendment was in 2008. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

But the Human Rights Campaign, which works on equal rights for the LGBT community, said that backing for anti-gay marriage measures was falling over time, citing statistics that showed the percentage of defeat at the ballot box dropping from 2004 to 2008.

Back in Durham, Libby and Melissa Hodges are debating whether to move to another state, where gay marriage would be legal.

They moved to North Carolina from Georgia in part because at the time, North Carolina allowed gay partners to adopt their children. That is no longer legal.

“My brother said, ‘If the amendment passes, North Carolina will be more backward than Georgia, will you move back to Georgia then?’” Melissa Hodges said. “I said, ‘You’re so wonderfully sweet, but no.’”

But leaving North Carolina would be hard. Both are city planners close to being vested in the state’s pension plan. Selling their home would be difficult, Melissa Hodges added, and their daughter was accepted into their first-choice kindergarten. Plus, another move would take her away from her brother, with whom she is close.

On Tuesday night, the Hodges watched the results online after putting their daughter to bed.

“She asked us before we put her to bed to make sure to tell her in the morning that we won,” Melissa Hodges said. “She doesn’t get the stuff with health insurance, but we told her that we’ll always take care of her, not to worry about that.”

Msnbc.com’s Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.

It’s rather funny that the people who were dedicated to overturning anything SHORT OF a constitutional amendment are crying about how this measure was unnecessary.

Of course no it’s not; I live in a state – California – which passed a measure defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman TWICE only to be overturned by fascist judges who frankly couldn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about the will of the people.  In 2000 Californian’s overwhelmingly passed Prop 22 with 61.4% of the voters approving the one sentence definition of a valid marriage.  Fascist judges said screw you; it is our very essence as fascist judges to impose our will on the people.  And then we passed Prop 22 and of course a homosexual judge did the same damn thing and overturned it.  And then he resigned so he could enjoy the rest of his life collecting benefits paid for by the people whose will he just pissed all over.

In Iowa, judges who decided that their feelings mattered far more than what the rest of the state believed just got honored for pissing on voters:

May 7, 2012 11:40 AM 
Iowa judges ousted after legalizing same-sex marriage to receive Profiles in Courage Award

(CBS/AP) BOSTON – President John F. Kennedy’s only surviving child is celebrating what would have been his 95th birthday this month by honoring three Iowa judges who were ousted after the court unanimously decided to legalize same-sex marriages.

Caroline Kennedy will also recognize the U.S. ambassador to Syria who risked his life to support opponents of President Basher Assad’s regime.

Kennedy heads the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, which promotes the late president’s memory and legacy. She is set to present the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Monday to former Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit, all of whom were pushed off the bench in a 2010 retention vote that capped a contentious campaign.

The three judges will receive a sterling silver ship’s lantern symbolizing a beacon of hope. The award, which was designed by Kennedy’s husband, Edwin Schlossberg, and crafted by Tiffany & Co., resembles one belonging to the U.S. Navy’s oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, or “Old Ironsides.”

Ternus, Baker and Streit were among seven justices who unanimously decided in 2009 that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state’s constitution. Conservative groups and other gay marriage foes spent about $1 million on a political campaign to oust the judges, who chose not to raise money or campaign themselves to avoid dragging the judiciary into politics.

“The three judges are interesting and courageous on many levels,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “… Like many of the people who get this award, they don’t consider that they are doing anything particularly courageous, they just feel they’re doing what’s right, they’re doing their job.”

Kennedy, who is a lawyer, said the three “knew when they were writing this decision that it was gonna be a pioneering decision and a landmark decision and would face a lot of popular opposition. They also were following very carefully the Iowa constitution and the rights that it gives to its citizens.”

Just imagine it being the other way around: the voters of a state overwhelmingly want gay marriage by a nearly 3 to 1 margin – and a conservative judge says to hell with all of you, only MY vote matters, and I vote to say to hell with the will of the people.  Is that judge going to be honored for his “courage,” do ya think???

Joe Biden says that the “marriage” of two men or two women is EVERY BIT as “valid” as the holy union under God between a man and a woman, and that married men and women and the families they create are no better or more positive for society than homosexual “matrimonies,” and North Carolina just responded with a great big giant “Up YOURS!”

That may have something to do with what over twenty percent of North Carolina DEMOCRATS said to Obama in the state’s Democrat primary for president:

“No preference” is another way of saying “no confidence” in the ONLY candidate on the ballot.

In West Virginia, it got even worse, with 42% of Democrat voters choosing an INCARCERATED FELON over Obama (who SHOULD be a convicted felon).  Obama has been a holocaust for that state, pure and simple.

And in Wisconsin, the hated conservative Governor Scott Walker easily won a larger percentage of the vote than BOTH of his Democrat challengers COMBINED and nearly as many as EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTE COMBINED.  With Wisconsin Republicans easily maintaining control of the state Senate.  Oh, and it’s also now known that the rabid Democrat recall effort has an unpaid debt of $17 million in back taxes.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who wants OTHERS to work and pay for what THEY then get to “redistribute” to their unions and their special interests.

Stuff like that helps me understand the dismal opening Obama got to the official opening of a re-election campaign that really never ended from 2008.

I see the potential for a major conservative ass-kicking coming.  And the ONLY thing standing in the way of that ass-kicking is the fact that Barack Obama - the worst and most cynical political whore who EVER walked the earth – has attended more fundraisers than the previous FIVE presidents COMBINED.  It won’t be easy to throw out our Crony Capitalist Fascist Whore in Chief given his enormous money-grubbing advantage.  Particularly since he has repeatedly used the American people’s taxpayer money as his own political slush fund.

Meanwhile, the same Obama who is too much of a weasel to tell us what he’s going to do with the ballistic missile shield he essentially turned traitor over, or the same Obama who is punting the Keystone pipeline until after the election so he can kill it once and for all, is the same weasel who doesn’t have the courage to look at the American people and tell them that he is going to “fundamentally transform” the institution of marriage on them.

He is a small, weak, skinny little runt in every way imaginable.  That is the essence of a weasel.

Congratulations on standing up for the sacred definition of marriage and for standing against the weasel who wants to undermine this nation’s greatest institutions, North Carolina.

Obama Follows Liberal Policies With Fishermen, Institutes ‘Catch And Release’ With Terrorists

Can you imagine FDR ordering US troops to release Japanese and Nazi soldiers if they cross their hearts that they won’t fight any more???

The mainstream media is sputtering with rage that a woman at a Romney event suggested that their messiah should be tried for treason.  And I’m thinking, “And why SHOULDN’T Obama be tried for treason?”

US secretly releasing Taliban fighters, report says
Published May 07, 2012
NewsCore

KABUL – The US has been secretly releasing captured Taliban fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group, the Washington Post reported Monday.

The “strategic release” program of high-level detainees is designed to give the US a bargaining chip in some areas of Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise control, the report said.

Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must promise to give up violence and are threatened with further punishment, but there is nothing to stop them resuming attacks against Afghan and American troops.

“Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,” a US official told the Post.

In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama confirmed that the US was pursuing peace talks with the Taliban.

“We have made it clear that they [the Taliban] can be a part of this future if they break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban — from foot soldiers to leaders — have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them,” Obama said.

A stumbling block in the US-Taliban peace talks has been the US refusal to approve the transfer of five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar, which the Taliban says is necessary for negotiations to proceed.

The clock is ticking also on the US handover of security control to the Afghans.

At the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, the US coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to take the lead in combat operations across the country next year.

During his short visit, Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a partnership deal that charts a 10-year relationship between the US and Afghanistan once the majority of American and foreign forces pull out of the country in 2014.

I mean, dang, even the reliable left is asking, “Couldn’t we at least exchange their prisoners for our prisoners?”  Obama says that would be intolerant and racist.

Fighters must promise…  THAT obviously can’t go wrong.  How does a serial liar like Obama not realize that these rat bastards are LYING?!?!?

You want an example of a lie from hell, do you?  How about Obama going to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the death of bin Laden to “spike the football” for the hundredth time and saying, “the tide had turned” and “we broke the Taliban’s momentum.”  When leaders of BOTH congressional intelligence committees - including liberal Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein – say they heard the exact OPPOSITE when they went to Afghanistan???

Congress’ intel leaders: Taliban stronger
By Anne Flaherty – The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday May 6, 2012 16:31:09 EDT

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the congressional committees said Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger since President Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010.

The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., challenges Obama’s own assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the “tide had turned” and that “we broke the Taliban’s momentum.”

Feinstein and Rogers told CNN’s “State of the Union” they aren’t so sure. The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

“President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come back. I’m not so sure,” Feinstein said. “The Taliban has a shadow system of governors in many provinces.”

When asked if the Taliban’s capabilities have been degraded since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, Feinstein said: “I think we’d both say that what we’ve found is that the Taliban is stronger.”

[...]

I don’t know.  Maybe if we QUIT LETTING THE TERRORISTS WHO ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS GO FREE????

I’m waiting till we have a president who thinks, “One of these sonsofbitches might kill one of my soldiers, so how ’bout if you just spend the rest of your life rotting in Gitmo while we waterboard you until you grow a set of gills?” instead of the turd we’ve got now.

When You Hear The Media Assure You That Obama Is Unbeatable, Consider Something Called ‘Reality’

What’s going wrong with the Obama campaign?  I mean, they’ve got a great slogan and everything…

Maybe too many of Obama’s supporters already fell off the cliff following Obama “forward.”  One thing is for certain, at Obama’s opening campaign kick-off event – which you would expect to be enormously attended and which Team Obama boasted beforehand would be standing-room-only – the entire upper deck (i.e., half the venue) was completely vacant:

Trouble already: Why so many no-shows for Obama’s campaign kickoff?
By ANDREW MALCOLM
Posted 10:10 AM ET

WANTED: A new presidential campaign advance team that can count. Contact Obama for America headquarters in Chicago.

Of all the times to blow the political optics, it was to be the first “official” campaign event on Barack Obama’s billion-dollar reelection campaign. A huge rally in Columbus, Ohio, capital of such a key state this fall that Republicans have never won the White House without it.

We say “official,” of course, because Obama has never really stopped running for reelection since Aretha Franklin’s last note on the Capitol steps Jan. 20, 2009. Nor has Obama let up campaigning since he announced his reelection bid more than a year ago.

So, Saturday’s kickoff was to begin in Ohio and then take Air Force One to Virginia, another once-red state that Obama would like to re-snatch in 2012.

But, alas, all of the excitement that was being staged for the media was over-shadowed by the 4,000 or so empty seats in Columbus. The obvious lesson in Political Advance 101 is: Always pick a setting that’s too small for the crowd you expect. Better to have some angry people clamoring to get inside from outside than the media snapping photos like the one above that screams ZZZZZZZZ.

Mitt Romney learned this lesson several weeks ago when he assembled a decent dining room crowd for his major economic speech in Detroit. But his team plopped them down in the middle of a football field in a stadium seating 70,000. Obviously, the Obama campaign isn’t reading news coverage of their opponent, hopefully over-confidence.

We were going to publish the complete text of the president’s alleged “opening” remarks, but we changed our minds. Talk about going through the motions. It’s the same yada-yada he’s been peddling at his record-breaking number of fundraisers.

We read it so you don’t have to: 3,930 words recounting how he never said change was easy, he’s already done a lot to fix America, he needs to do more to cement the transformation of this country and this campaign will be harder than the last one.

The most interesting part of the event was actually not Obama’s. It was Michelle Obama’s. She campaigned in 2008. Remember, that was the first time she’d ever been proud of her country. But this time she’s been pushed even more front-and-center. She’s making her own cross-country swings of political fundraisers.

And Saturday she was the poised warm-up act for her husband. Except instead of a couple endearing stories about Barack, she actually gave her own speech. It was about 1,500 words-worth that wandered off into her own childhood and her father’s life of hard work and how he always paid his bills on time and how that’s what’s really at stake this year.

“More than anything else, that is what’s at stake, she said. “It’s that fundamental promise that no matter who you are or how you started out, if you work hard, you can build a decent life for yourself and yes, an even better life for your kids.”

She didn’t have time to explain how her husband’s economic stimulus plan ended up only stimulating the national debt, while the unemployed and under-employed soared into the many millions and the record foreclosures and the lame economic recovery because of financial fears, over-regulation and little Washington leadership.

She didn’t have time to go into the wasted weeks her husband campaigned for the so-called Buffet Rule that he knew full well was doomed in the Senate controlled by his own party. Or the birth control insurance regulation. And the college loan combat he’s trying to generate.

All designed to distract from the doubling of gas prices, the declines in federal drilling and what hasn’t happened under Obama’s so-called presidential leadership.

Michelle Obama’s “warm-up” speech ended up about as long as the prime-time one her husband flew 14,000 miles to and from Afghanistan to be seen reporting back to America last week. She got into Barack’s childhood with a single mom and his grandmother working at a bank and allegedly hitting that glass ceiling that female workers know so well. And how all of the wonderful progress that Barack has made is jeopardized by this reelection business.

She also made a fervent appeal to enlist more members for the army of community organizers the campaign is trying to construct nationally this summer and fall to solicit supporters and track opponents. See our previous story here.

For his part, her husband offered the familiar excuse about the historic economic troubles he inherited, those people who were playing the markets, the people who opposed his expensive automobile bailout and sellout to the automobile unions.

And then came our favorite Obama whopper of the day:

“Now we face a choice,” the president intoned. “For the last few years, the Republicans who run this Congress have insisted that we go right back to the policies that created this mess.”

Wait! What? The Republicans lost control of Congress way back in November, 2006. They won control of the House in an historic electoral blowback against Obama ignoring the economy and his insistence on Obamacare. John Boehner became speaker 16 months ago. The GOP still doesn’t control the Senate.

So, once again the ongoing mess on Obama’s watch is somebody else’s fault. It may actually have been lucky for him that more than 4,000 of the Ohio State seats went empty. Those folks might have gotten the joke and laughed him off the dais.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

The best way for Republicans to feel is energized and expectant of victory IF they work hard to get rid of this socialist turd and actually show up to vote.

Dick Morris is predicting a landslide for Romney and for Republicans in 2012.  Obviously, I hope very much for the sake of my country that Morris is right.  I’ve also got next to zero confidence in the accuracy of Bill Clinton’s former pollster.

Pundits on the Obama side talk about the lack of “enthusiasm” for Mitt Romney.  And all of their polling data that they bother to consider looks at “registered voters” and completely ignores “likely voters.”  They also studiously ignore the fact that Romney has opened up a ten point lead with independent voters who historically decide close elections.

Well, dang, I’M totally unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney.  I will also climb out of my own grave to go vote for him in November.  And that is because my “enthusiasm” doesn’t depend on Mitt Romney, but rather on the Marxist clown who has spent the last four years rotting America from its roots up.

I have a feeling if the pollsters bothered to ask the right question, they would actually get a lot more answers like the one above than they are willing to hear.

Morally Idiotic Liberalism Gone Completely Insane: UN Demands US Surrender Mt Rushmore As Terrorist Mouthpiece Demands We Show 9/11 Mass Murderers ‘Respect’

First the UN thing (which is simply INSANE):

UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans
By Reuters

The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, according to a U.N. human rights investigator.
 
James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials. 

“I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced,” Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva Friday.
 
That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.
 
Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed.

Keep in mind just which nations have served on this “Human Rights” body for the most liberal and most radically secular humanist organization ever to curse the world (that’s right; even worse than the Democrat Party!): a study concludes that, ”According to the assessment given above, the most repressive regimes in the world currently enjoy a highly inflated rate of representation on the Human Rights Commission.”

“The U.N. Human Rights Council has once again proved itself outside the evolution and progress of history,” another article denouncing the terrorist-rogue regime members of this “human rights council” pointed out.

“Human rights” is a cynical meme for the worst people on earth to “fundamentally transform” the world around them.

For the record, the US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the seizure of the land upon which Mt. Rushmore was built was in fact illegal.  And the United States government has been compensating the Indian tribes for that land ever since.  And frankly, that’s the best any nation can ever be expected to do.

How about this alternative solution: if you are not a 100 percent pure-blooded Native American Indian, you must leave the North American Continent for good.  Because your ancestors stole the land, pure and simple.  And none of this “I’m one-half Cherokee” crap; because the other half of your ancestors are guilty of the same crime the rest of us are, and you’ve got to pay for the crimes of your ancestors same as the rest of us.  Same thing all over the world: if you are not a full-blooded aborigine, you must move; you must leave your land because your ancestors stole it from somebody else and you’ve got to pay for the sins of the past.

Let’s have nearly the entire human race climb aboard space ships and blast off, destination unknown, to (hopefully) find a living space that we don’t have to take from some poor sentient or even non-sentient species.

You start to see what a joke this crap becomes.  Particularly when you understand additionally that this is nothing more than liberals – the most intolerant people who ever lived – imposing their “new morality” upon all of history.

But that’s liberalism, and liberalism equals insanity.

Now, Barack Obama would ordinarily be all for this.  But take a look at Mt. Rushmore and you might see the rub:

Consider what Obama has narcissistically said about himself:

Following his interview with 60 minutes last week, President Obama is now under fire from the right for comments he made implicitly suggesting that he was the fourth-best president in American history. “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln,” he said.

So take a look at Mt. Rushmore as Obama sees it -

- and you understand the problem.

Unless Obama believes that the Indians, in their appreciation of his wonderfulness, would recreate Mt Rushmore with Obama’s image on it.  Then we’re in trouble.

Well, the wonders of liberalism never cease:

May 06, 2012
9/11 Defense Attorney Calls For women To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing

AP

Attorney In hijab Defends Call For Other Women At 9/11 Hearing To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing

The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.

Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”

At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”

Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”

I suppose if Cheryl Bormann were representing Ferengi terrorists, she would insist that all women simply go nude altogether in the courtroom.  That’s the very least decent women can do to show proper respect.

I also find it odd how these terrorists were able to remain “focused” while they were going to strip clubs as they plotted to destroy America.

It doesn’t matter that the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans was itself the most profound act of cultural intolerance imaginable.  Liberals don’t think that way.

Liberals are so “open-minded” their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the place.  That, combined with their utterly hypocritical intolerance for anything and anybody they truly disagree with (try to imagine liberals actually bending over backwards for evangelical Christians for a har-har) and you see the problem with these people.

Openly Socialist Hollande And Obama Share SAME Major Policies – So Obama Isn’t A Socialist WHY, Exactly???

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

I have frequently on this very blog demanded liberals to explain in detail just how exactly Barack Obama isn’t for the same thing (i.e., the major economic element of communism).  But let’s start with the French and get to Obama later.

Planet France is a place where fools have pretty much run things ever since 1789.  Two words that define France today are “socialism” and “surrender.”

Who did Planet France just elect?  And just what is this particular cheese-eating socialist surrender-monkey saying he’s going to do?

Hollande defeats Sarkozy in French presidency vote
Updated 04:05 p.m., Sunday, May 6, 2012

PARIS (AP) — Socialist Francois Hollande defeated conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy on Sunday to become France’s next president, heralding a change in how Europe tackles its debt crisis and how France flexes its military and diplomatic muscle around the world.

Exuberant, diverse crowds filled the Place de la Bastille, the iconic plaza of the French Revolution, to fete Hollande’s victory, waving French, European and labor union flags and climbing the column that rises at its center. Leftists are overjoyed to have one of their own in power for the first time since Socialist Francois Mitterrand was president from 1981 to 1995.

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!” Hollande declared in his victory speech Sunday night after a surprising campaign that saw him transform from an unremarkable, mild figure to an increasingly statesmanlike one.

Sarkozy is the latest victim of a wave of voter anger at government spending cuts around Europe that have tossed out governments and leaders over the past couple of years.

In Greece, a parliamentary vote Sunday is seen as critical to the country’s prospects for pulling out of a deep financial crisis felt in world markets. A state election in Germany and local elections in Italy were seen as tests of support for the national government’s policies.

Hollande promised help for France’s downtrodden after years under the Sarkozy, a man many voters saw as too friendly with the rich and blamed for economic troubles.

Hollande said European partners should be relieved and not frightened by his presidency.

“I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again,” Hollande told huge crowds of supporters in his electoral fiefdom of Tulle in central France. “We will succeed!”

Hollande inherits an economy that’s a driver of the European Union but is deep in debt. He wants more government stimulus, and more government spending in general, despite concerns in the markets that France needs to urgently trim its huge debt.

Sarkozy conceded defeat minutes after the polls closed, saying he had called Hollande to wish him “good luck” as the country’s new leader.

Sarkozy, widely disliked for budget cuts and his handling of the economy during recent crises, said he did his best to win a second term, despite widespread anger at his handling of the economy.

“I bear responsibility … for the defeat,” he said. “I committed myself totally, fully, but I didn’t succeed in convincing a majority of French. … I didn’t succeed in making the values we share win.”

With 75 percent of the vote counted, official results showed Hollande with 51.1 percent of the vote compared with Sarkozy’s 48.9 percent, the Interior Ministry said. The CSA, TNS-Sofres and Ipsos polling agencies all predicted a Hollande win as well.

Hollande has virtually no foreign policy experience but he will face his first tests right after his inauguration, which must happen no later than May 16.

Among his first trips will be to the United States later this month for summits of NATO — where he will announce he is pulling French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year — and the Group of Eight leading world economies.

Hollande’s first challenge will be dealing with Germany: He wants to re-negotiate a hard-won European treaty on budget cuts that Germany’s Angela Merkel and Sarkozy had championed. He promises to make his first foreign trip to Berlin to work on a relationship that has been at the heart of Europe’s postwar unity.

Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, congratulated Hollande on Sunday night and said both countries will keep on cooperating closely in driving the European Union’s policies and be “a stabilizing factor and a motor for the European Union.”

At home, Hollande intends to modify one of Sarkozy’s key reforms, over the retirement age, to allow some people to retire at 60 instead of 62. He also plans to increase spending in a range of sectors and wants to ease France off its dependence on nuclear energy. He favors legalizing euthanasia and gay marriage.

Sarkozy supporters call those proposals misguided.

“We’re going to call France the new Greece,” said Laetitia Barone, 19. “Hollande is now very dangerous.”

Sarkozy had said he would quit politics if he lost, but was vague about his plans Sunday night.

“You can count on me to defend these ideas, convictions,” he said, “but my place cannot be the same.”

His political allies turned their attention to parliamentary elections next month.

People of all ages and different ethnicities celebrated Hollande’s victory at the Bastille. Ghylaine Lambrecht, 60, who celebrated the 1981 victory of Mitterrand at the Bastille, was among them.

“I’m so happy. We had to put up with Sarko for 10 years,” she said referring to Sarkozy’s time as interior and finance minister and five years as president. “In the last few years the rich have been getting richer. Now long live France, an open democratic France.”

“It’s magic!” said Violaine Chenais, 19. “I think Francois Hollande is not perfect, but it’s clear France thinks its time to give the left a chance. This means real hope for France. We’re going to celebrate with drink and hopefully some dancing.”

Planet France is a place where liberalism lives forever.  Planet France is a place where foolishness is wisdom, where night is day and where evil is good.

The markets already plunged on the fear that Hollande could win; now he’s won.  And the finance markets aren’t happy with “we will spend other people’s money until there is no more of other people’s money left to spend” policies:

Euro falls to three and a half year low amid market jitters at French and Greek elections
The Euro hit a three and a half year low against the pound as financial markets reacted to the election of Francois Hollande as France’s first Socialist president for 17 years and the new threat to a eurozone break-up posed by the post-election turmoil in Greece.
By Roland Gribben, Henry Samuel and Bruno Waterfield
11:24AM BST 07 May 2012

The Paris stock exchange CAC 40 index dropped 1.52pc in early trading with investors nervous about the growing pressure for a eurozone economic policy switch from austerity to growth, reflected in the French and Greek election results and President Hollande’s priorities.
 
The euro fell heavily across the board on Monday. Traders said the euro’s losses, which saw it hit a three-month low against the dollar, its lowest in 3 and a half years against the British pound and a 2 and half month trough versus the yen, were likely to be extended in coming days.
 
Stocks in Italy fell 2.2pc, the main Madrid index slipped 1.76pc while a 2.02pc drop in the DAX index of leading German shares was blamed on a local election setback for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
 
Political stalemate in Greece after the failure of any party to gain a majority saw shares on the Athens market slump 7.6pc.
 
The strength of the opposition to the Greek bail-out programme has raised fresh questions about continued eurozone membership.

Alexis Tsipras leader of the Syriza party, a coalition of the radical left which emerged as the second biggest after winning 16pc of the Greek vote, immediately drew the battle lines declaring: “The people of Europe can no longer be reconciled with the bailouts of barbarism.”
 
The euro fell its lowest level for almost four months to $1.2954 before showing signs of a rally to $1.301 while the interest rate on France’s benchmark ten year bonds rose.
 
Traders said there was no panic but the rising yield is increasing concerns about a run on French debt and a threat to the French deficit reduction programme. A widening in the spread between French and German bonds was seen as a ‘flight to safety.’
 
Germany’s 10-year yield fell to as low as 1.552pc, the second record in consecutive trading days.
 
Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s said President Hollande’s victory would have no immediate effect on its French rating.
 
The agency infuriated former President Sarkozy when it stripped France of its top triple-A rating in January.
 
A number of analysts felt markets had already taken account of a Hollande victory while others argued that a combination of the French and Greek results would increase pressure on eurozone debt.
 
World stock markets hit as France votes for first Socialist president in 20 years and Greece chooses a parliament with a majority of MPs from anti-bailout parties.

Some say that the market has already taken a Hollande win – i.e. a win for socialism, a win for liberalism, into account.  These are pretty much saying that Hollande will govern far more pragmatically than his liberal rhetoric suggests.  They’re saying that the world financial markets will prevent true socialism from emerging in France, and that Hollande will have to face reality given that he’s simply boxed-in by simple reality.   But even those people are saying, “We are quite pessimistic about the euro area in the short-term. We think that the GDP contraction will amplify in the second quarter. So, things will get worse in the coming weeks.”

I think that’s hogwash.  I think that Hollande will now believe he’s got a mandate to export his brand of socialist-liberal belief in unicorns and fairy dust to Germany and to the world financial markets.  His win was by about the same margin that Obama won by, interestingly, and both Obama and Democrats sure as hell thought THEY had a mandate which they foolishly exploited until the voters gave them a historic ass-kicking in 2010.  I also think that Hollande’s “Our way out of our massive debt is for our government to pretend we’re not in debt and quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” mantra is the way to ruin.  And that ruin will surely ensue.  And, lastly, I think that the Eurozone’s complete and utter collapse is all but guaranteed now.

I said “quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” in honor of our own socialist fool: Barack Hussein Obama.  Because Obama has spent FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS BUSH DID:

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!”

Our socialist fools in the Democrat Party in America are as determined to ignore reality as the sociliast fools on Planet France.

Compare and contrast openly socialist Hollande’s major policies to Obama’s: both want huge government stimulus programs; both oppose any constraints on government spending; both demand that we tax the rich; and both want a special tax on banks.  That’s because Barack Obama is a damn SOCIALIST!!!

The French election previews the U.S. November election contest between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney in the following four ways:

1). Both Obama and Hollande offer almost identical leftist platforms (details on this below).

2) The bland challengers (Hollande and Romney) ignite electoral passions less than their more colorful opponents (playboy Sarkozy with his celebrity wife and Obama, the first black president).

3) The sorry state of the economy gives both challengers a hefty leg-up.

4) The French and American elections are foreshadowed by electoral disasters for the incumbent party in off-year races in 2010 and 2011. In both, the incumbent party lost long-held majorities in one house of Congress or parliament.

Read more…

And it’s no surprise that America under Obama is looking more and more like Europe and having the same long-term problems that Europe has had:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s euro-style unemployment
Welfare-state mentality fosters permanent joblessness
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, June 14, 2011

It’s no secret that President Obama wants America to look more like Europe. He desires expanded powers for labor unions, higher gas prices for commuters and a diminished role on the world stage. So far, he’s been effective in fostering the conditions for European-style unemployment on these shores. [...]

As we speak the unemployment rate just went down.  Why?  Because 115,000 jobs were created – nowhere near enough to even keep pace with population growth, mind you - and 342,000 gave up trying to find a job in complete despair.  We live in our own version of planet France when nobody could have a job and our president could boast of a 0% unemployment rate.

George Will pointed out a couple of facts as to just how terrible Obama is managing our economy this week on ABC’s “This Week”:

JAKE TAPPER: George, the president kicked off his campaign yesterday. Thoughts?

WILL: He kicked it off a day after we saw the emblematic achievement of the Obama administration, which is to make a decline in the unemployment rate bad news. It ticked down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent because 342,000 of Americans succumbed to discouragement with the Obama economy and left the economy.
 
Male participation rate in the economy today is lower than it has been at any time since we began keeping this statistic in 1948. Indeed, if the workforce participation rate were the same today as it was when Mr. Obama was inaugurated, the real unemployment rate would be measured at about 11 percent. That’s no record to run on.

Barry Hussein has been a jobs holocaust.

Bay Buchannon later made a statement about the planet France-like FOOLS who were instrumental to Obama’s 2008 victory: college students.

People who are graduating from college, 53 percent, do not get jobs when they graduate. We are going to lose that whole generation because, you know, when the jobs do come back, they’re going to hire college graduates just coming out.

Those idiot socialist fools deserve to suffer; it’s too dang bad the rest of the nation has to suffer along with them because of their vote for Obama four years ago.

I point out how simply godawful Obama has been for America.  Two years ago, due to Obama’s wildly failed policies, the labor participation rate measuring how many working-age Americans are actually WORKING was at a 25-year low.  Last year that participation rate had decreased to a 27-year low.  This year it decreased to a 31-year low.  Millions and millions of jobs have simply been vaporized under Obama and there is no sign that they will be coming back.

If you vote for Obama’s version of planet France, I can guarantee you that that rate measuring how many working-age Americans have any chance whatsoever of getting a job will continue to plunge.

P.S. The funniest damn thing of all is what I read after I got through writing this article but before I published it: that Obama is advising Hollande NOT to raise taxes and increase spending for the sake of the European economy.  WHILE OBAMA HIMSELF IS CAMPAIGNING ON DOING THE VERY THINGS HE’S TELLING HIS FELLOW SOCIALIST NOT TO DO.

Stunning Development: Same President Who’s Been Blaming Bush For Four Years Drafted CYA Memo To Blame Military If Bin Laden Raid Failed

Let me get this straight: the man who has blamed George Bush for FOUR YEARS of his own failures actually stood up and made a courageous decision all by himself? Seriously?

It’s time to take another drink again, you liver-failed alcoholics who are still in the Obama drinking game.

Every time there’s “unexpected” news – such as poor economic news or anything that would undermine the liberal thesis that Obama is our messiah – ye who are playing must take a drink.

Most of the players are dead now and the few who are still living are very, very sick waiting for their new donor organs (the argument being, “I’m NOT an alcoholic; I’m just a guy who trusted Obama”):

Former AG Michael Mukasey: Obama Officials Drafted Memo to Blame Military If OBL Mission Failed (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, May 4, 2012, 10:39 PM

Leadership: Obama Administration Drafted Memo to Blame Military if OBL Mission Failed

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Sean Hannity tonight that the Obama Administration drafted a memo to protect the president from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. That way Obama could blame the general instead of taking the blame himself. Mukasey wrote about it this week in The Wall Street Journal.

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.“

And, of course, this surprises no one who is familiar with Obama’s leadership style.

Mukasey also contrasted Obama’s leadership style tonight to Lincoln and Eisenhower as he did in his WSJ Opinion piece earlier in the week.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.’”

Here’s what Mukasey said in the Wall Street Journal:

Updated April 30, 2012, 7:43 p.m. ET.Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
It’s hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

The only reliable weapon that any administration has against the current threat to this country is intelligence. Every operation like the one against bin Laden (or the one that ended the career of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al Qaeda propagandist killed in a drone attack last September) dips into the reservoir of available intelligence. Refilling that reservoir apparently is of no importance to an administration that, after an order signed by the president on his second day in office, has no classified interrogation program—and whose priorities are apparent from its swift decision to reopen investigations of CIA operators for alleged abuses in connection with the classified interrogation program that once did exist.

While contemplating how the killing of bin Laden reflects on the president, consider the way he emphasized his own role in the hazardous mission accomplished by SEAL Team 6:

“I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as I continued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . .”

That seems a jarring formulation coming from a man who, when first elected, was asked which president he would model himself on and replied, Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.

The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

That is not to say that great leaders, including presidents, have not placed themselves at the center of great events. But generally it has been to accept responsibility for failure.

Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes.

Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: “I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.’”

Such examples are worth remembering every time President Obama claims bin Laden bragging rights.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.

A version of this article appeared May 1, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights.

You’ve got to understand the situation Obama faced: what would have happened to Obama politically if he had been told exactly where bin Laden was hiding and he refused to get him???  When you ask yourself that question, it wasn’t a courageous decision to go after Osama bin Laden: it would have been a far more politically courageous decision NOT to go get him; because furious intelligence and military professionals would have resigned in protest and then made very sure that Obama paid politically for refusing to get the man who murdered 3,000 Americans.  And let’s not forget that this is now the age of Wikileaks.

Obama would not have politically survived if he had refused to get bin Laden; he might literally have been impeached – with Democrats joining Republicans to wash their hands of this turd.

Obama did what Obama had to do to protect Obama. 

And the memo pretty much proves that Obama took the “protect Obama at all costs” meme as far as he could possibly take it.

Don’t blame Obama.  Never blame Obama.  Obama is he who must never be blamed.  You are not allowed to hold him responsible for anything that ever has happened or ever will happen or you are a racist.  Well, if you vote Republican you’re already a racist a priori; so you’re a DOUBLE racist.

Rapidly Worsening Labor Participation Rate Now Lowest In More Than THIRTY YEARS Under Obama’s Failed Regime. PLEASE LOOK AT HISTORY!!!

I’ve said it before: before long nobody will have a job and the mainstream media will be touting that unemployment is at zero percent.

It’s not just disappointing job numbers we’re looking at, of course; home prices, factory orders, retail sales and construction are all at godawful lows, too.  Let’s talk about Sandra Fluke and her made-up claims so Democrats can demagogue a war on women; let’s talk about Mitt Romney’s dog forty years ago; look over here at the shiny toy I’m waving; just don’t look at Obama’s economic record.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is working overtime to somehow tease out something “positive” from disastrous economic figures.  Mind you, they were working just as hard to find every dark cloud in every silver lining when Republican Ronald Reagan was president (as I’ve written about before):

When Ronald Reagan came into office he had an awful lot of terrible policies and terrible results from those policies to overcome.  As I wrote back in October 2009:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

[...]

I didn’t mention the labor participation rate in that article.  Frankly I’m not even sure I was that aware of the damned labor participation rate at that point.  But I’m sure aware of it now; and I am watching an employment holocaust under the most failed president in American history with growing horror.

Two years ago Tyler Durden pointed out that the labor participation rate was the lowest in 25 years:

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 25 Year Low, At 64.5%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/05/2010 09:03 -0400

The inverse silver lining to today’s jobs report that will be lost in the shuffle of what is perceived as a good NFP (despite consistent initial jobless claims of around 450K, which means that either there is a massive data error, or the rate of job creation has somehow surged) is that labor force participation has now dropped to the lowest rate it has been since 1984, at 64.5%. Assuming a reversion to the long-term average participation rate of 66%, means that the civilian labor force is in reality 157.4 million as opposed to the disclosed 153.9 million, a delta of 3.5 million currently unaccounted for. Maybe someone can ask the president during his imminent press conference what happened to the unemployed population, which would have been 18.3 if this labor force delta was incorporated, resulting in an unemployment rate of 11.6%.

Last year Tyler Durden pointed out that the labor participation rate was the lowest since 1984 (27 years):

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/05/2011 08:59 -0400

While we still await for BLS.gov to finally come back up online half an hour after printing the actual NFP number, here is the one data point that we know for a fact: the labor force participation rate, and the reason why the general unemployment rate declined to 9.1%, just dropped to 63.9%, the lowest in 16 years, or matches the participation rate from January 1984.

Now, the Associated Press is pointing out that the labor participation rate – which was the worst in 25 years two years ago, and the worst in 27 years last year – IS THE WORST IN THIRTY-ONE YEARS!!!

US hiring slows sharply with just 115K jobs added
Published May 04, 2012
Associated Press

U.S. employers pulled back on hiring in April for the second straight month, a sobering reminder that the economy remains weak. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent, but only because more people gave up looking for work.
 
The Labor Department said Friday that the economy added just 115,000 jobs in April. That’s below March’s upwardly revised 154,000 jobs and far fewer than the pace from earlier this year.
 
The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month’s decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.
 
In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years.
 
Employers added an average of 252,000 jobs per month from December through February, a burst of hiring that raised hopes the economy would accelerate. But job gains have averaged only 135,000 in the two months since then.
 
The slowdown will heighten fears that high gas prices and sluggish income growth are weighing on the broader economy.
 
Average hourly wages rose a penny in April, to $23.38. They have increased 1.8 percent over the past year, trailing the rate of inflation.
 
The economy must create at least 125,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. It generally takes twice that number on a consistent basis to rapidly lower the unemployment rate.
 
Weak job gains pose a threat to President Barack Obama’s reelection. He is likely to face voters this fall with the highest unemployment rate of any president since World War II.
 
Economists surveyed by the Associated Press said hiring should be sufficient to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day. The 32 economists surveyed by the AP see steady job gains averaging 177,000 a month for the rest of this year. That should be enough to lower the unemployment rate to 7.9 percent by November.
 
There have been some signs that hiring will improve.
 
The number of people seeking unemployment benefits fell last week by the most in a year, the government said Thursday. That figure was released after the government compiled its April report. But it could bode well for hiring in May.
 
And earlier this week, the Institute for Supply Management, a private trade group, said factory activity grew at the fastest pace in 10 months and a gauge of manufacturing employment showed that hiring jumped.
 
Still, service companies expanded in April at the slowest pace in four months, according to a separate ISM survey. And the group said hiring at those companies, which employ roughly 90 percent of the work force, slowed.
 
The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, down from 3 percent growth in the fourth quarter. Economists polled by the AP forecast the economy will grow 2.5 percent this year. In a healthy economy, that would be considered average. But faster growth is needed to spur greater job creation.

Obama is leading us to hell so fast it is unreal. 

And he’s actually taking credit for it.  Because as thousands more Americans simply give up in abject despair of finding a job in his failed economy, it artificially reduces the unemployment rate because people who give up are no longer counted.

Which means literally that the more people Obama drives into total despair, the better – at least for Obama:

“The unemployment rate ticked down again,” Obama said during a speech

And the most dishonest, most vile media propaganda since Joseph Goebbels helped give the world the Nazi Party is helping him to do it.  One blogger contemplating the destruction of jobs as measured by labor participation underscores this fact with some quotes from 1984:

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Eighty-eight MILLION Americans have been driven out of the workforce under this presidency.  Unemployment would be over ELEVEN PERCENT if we calcuated unemployment at the same labor partipation rate that George Bush had when he left office.  When the rate was at 65.76 not all that long ago, unemployment would have been at 10.9 percent; Obama has now driven the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force down to 63.6 percent.

“The civilian labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent, while the employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little.” — BLS statistics, May 4, 2012

For men, the labor participation rate is now 70% - the lowest it has EVER been since records started being kept in 1948.  Democrats love to talk about “the war on women” when they have a war on men that is simply beyond unreal.

THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE UNDER THIS PRESIDENT IS 11.6 PERCENT:

Real U-3 Unemployment Rate: 11.6%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/04/2012 10:02 -0400

Propaganda unemployment rate: 8.1%; Real unemployment rate: 11.6%. Reason for difference: organic growth of labor force which grows alongside the broader population. Don’t be confused by cheap explanations on TV why the labor force should be declining (especially with ZIRP meaning pre-retirement workers have to stay in the labor force ever longer to supplant their meager fixed income): the widely accepted definition of the labor pool, that used by the CBO and all other government forecasting agencies, assumes a 90,000 growth in the labor force every month as it has to keep in line with the growth of the US population! The implication is simple: using a real labor force participation rate long-term average of 65.8%, the real unemployment rate in April was 11.6%, based on the 5.4 million additional workers that should be counted as part of the U-3 which then means that the real number of unemployed is not 12.5 million but 17.9 million, which in turn implies a 11.6% unemployment rate in the US. This also means that the spread between the propaganda, and the real number is now 3.5%: the most it has been since the early 1980s.

It was said during the Great Depression that it really wasn’t so bad - as long as you had a job.

If you don’t have a job, or if you lose your job – as more Americans are losing their jobs every day now – Barack Obama is the worst enemy you ever had in your life.  If you lose your job, Barack Obama will crush you under his foot and when you give up bothering to look, Obama will tout the disaster that he has made of your life into a “success” as the bogus unemployment rate “drops.”

As I said in the title, PLEASE LOOK AT HISTORY!!!  Because since Obama touted his massisvely failed stimulus, everything he said would happen turned out to be a lie, and everything conservatives predicted turned out to be TRUE.  Here is a chart of the Obama stimulus, with lines showing what was predicted by Obama versus REALITY:

When you examine Obama’s very own predictions, he promised America that if his stimulus passed (and, uh, it did, you know) unemployment would be at 6 percent today. But if we DIDN’T pass his stumulus, things would be worse and unemployment would be higher – at about 6.7 percent today. AND EVEN BY THE MOST BOGUS CALCULATION UNEMPLOYMENT WITH OBAMA’S STIMULUS IS FAR WORSE THAN OBAMA SAID IT WOULD BE WITHOUT HIS DAMN STIMULUS.

Obama is now selling another whopping snake-oil lie by claiming that the answer to prosperity is more damn taxes on producers to punish them for daring to produce.  If we eliminated our military budget, if we eliminated all of our discretionary spending, if we added Obama’s deceitful “Buffett rule,” we STILL wouldn’t be able to overcome OBAMA’S MASSIVE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT.  This truly evil man is ruining us.

Please look at history and wake UP, damn it.  Stop being the proverbial lemming who follows his leader off the cliff!  Stop being the proverbial frog in the pot of wter who allows himself to be boiled to death.

The reality is that Obama has created a holocaust.  And just as has tragically happened in the past, and just like the book 1984 examined, the bad guys are hiding it.

Next year, if Obama gets re-elected, the labor participation rate – measuring the number of working-age Americans who actually have JOBS – will be the lowest since Carter.  And the fact that there won’t be any Ronald Reagan to fix it, combined with the true disaster Obama has compiled and will continue to compile, will be enough to bury this country.

Liberal Democrats Demand ‘We Should Acknowledge The Existence of Good Pedophiles.’ When There’s Not Even Such A Thing As The Existence Of A Good DEMOCRAT.

You just can’t get any lower than liberalism.  Every whale turd has tried … and failed:

Dan Savage “We Should Acknowledge The Existence of Good Pedophiles”
Posted by F.R Newbrough on April 30, 2012 at 12:30am

There has been considerable controversy over recent comments by Dan Savage, a radical gay rights activist, when he said “we can learn to ignore the bulls–t in the bible..” The YouTube video of the event is below so you can watch it yourself. However this is not the first or the worst or most radical of this man’s hateful outbursts. He is also very outspoken on issues such as pedophilia. 

One of many examples is a column where he wrote that “we need to acknowledge the existence of good pedophiles”.

This link is to an advice column from Feb 2, 2010 where he states his long-standing sympathies for pedophiles.

I’m not going to go any further than that because the man’s ugly vulgar and obscene history is readily available online but of course the msm doesn’t seem to care what this man says or does because they didn’t even notice or rather were not shocked when he and his and his partner Terry Miller were invited to the White House by the Obama administration for a June 29,2011 “Pride Reception”.

Does this mean President Obama’s positions on Pedophilia have also evolved?

UPDATE:

Here are a couple detailed filled links courtesy of Ben Shapiro:

Dan Savage: “I Wish Republicans Were All F***ing Dead.’”

Dan Savage: “Justice Scalia Is A ‘C***sucker.’”

It is important to understand that NAMBLA – the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and the essence of which was PEDOPHILIA – was once a part of the homosexual International Lesbian and Gay Association and once a part of the United Nations until cynical political expediency caused them to be removed.  And liberal Democrats like Dan Savage have been trying to undo that politically convenient albeit cynical and hypocritical disconnect (that according to the left’s own moral “logic”) ever since.

Here are the words of a Democrat – who has been invited to the Obama White House and everything – that all Democrats ought to be as proud of as Obama was of him:

‘Let’s Say I’m A Pedophile’
By Dan Savage |Posted Feb. 2, 2010

Let’s say, theoretically, I’m a pedophile.

I’m not stupid or evil, so I’m not gonna do anything. I’m not even gonna look at porn. I don’t even look at kids in public, and anyone of whatever orientation who’s been to a crowded beach knows how hard that can be.

So what the fuck should I do? Chemical castration? But I haven’t DONE anything and I don’t plan to. Am I obliged to tell anyone? Good way to lose friends and get the shit kicked out of me. Can I keep babysitting my friends’ kids when they need a hand? After all, if I were into adult women, people wouldn’t see anything wrong with leaving me alone with a couple of those.

My sex drive was put together wrong, Dan. What the fuck do I do? Live alone and hope Japan starts producing affordable sexbots before I’m too old to care?

You know, theoretically. If I were a pedophile.

Knows It’s Wrong

“My heart goes out to people to whom nature has given something as powerful and as distracting as a sex drive and no healthy way to express it,” says Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist and the editor in chief of the research journal Sexual Abuse. “Pedophiles are not the only folks in this position, but they are by far the most demonized, regardless of whether they have ever actually caused anyone any kind of harm.”

My heart is going out to you, too, KIW. As I’ve written before, we should acknowledge the existence of “good pedophiles,” who are burdened with a sexual interest in children but who possess the moral sense to resist acting on that interest. It’s a lifelong struggle for “good pedophiles,” and most manage to succeed without any emotional support—to say nothing of credit—whatsoever.

Unfortunately, science doesn’t know much about pedophiles like you, pedophiles who haven’t done anything, because the social stigma is so great that most nonoffending pedophiles never seek treatment. And what research has been done, says Cantor, isn’t very encouraging if you’re looking to free yourself from your attraction to children.

“There is no known way of turning a pedophile into a nonpedophile,” says Cantor. “The best we can do is help a person maximize their self-control and to help them build an otherwise happy and productive life.”

The psychotherapies that are available, says Cantor, “were designed to assist people who have already committed an offense. These therapies have less to provide to people who already have the skills and drive to keep themselves from ‘acting out.’” Your best option, according to Cantor, may be the one you’re clearly not too enthused about: “Castration, both chemical and physical,” says Cantor, “can indeed be used to eliminate or take the edge off one’s sex drive.”

“Nonoffender pedophiles have told me that chemical castration has given them relief,” Cantor adds. “So it’s unfortunate that we use the term ‘chemical castration,’ which evokes all kinds of emotions. When you get right down to it, we are talking only about taking the same medication used by, for example, prostate-cancer patients—some cancers are accelerated by testosterone, so blocking testosterone is part of the treatment.”

And as for babysitting …

“It is true that a regular, heterosexual man is not going to commit an offense against every woman he finds attractive; however, most women are capable of recognizing when an interaction is starting to go south. Most children are not. So although there is every reason to believe that there exist cats that can successfully be in charge of the canary, it’s not a good idea for the cat to be the one making that call.”

So no babysitting for you, KIW—to protect the kids, first and foremost, but yourself as well. If it ever comes out that you are a pedophile and you were in the habit of babysitting-without-touching, your friends are unlikely to take your protestations—you’ve never touched a child—at face value.

“I wish I had better news,” concludes Cantor. “I also wish that more people did good research on this so that one day I could have better news to give.”

One of the reasons given for the nomination of Pope John Paul II for sainthood is that he “whipped himself with a belt, even on vacation,” according to a new book. If that’s what it takes, why isn’t David Carradine a saint? What is the link between Catholicism and sadomasochism? As a former seminarian, perhaps you can explain this.

When Holiness Is Painful

First, I was in the preparatory seminary—a high school for boys considering the priesthood—not a full-blown seminary, WHIP. (I stopped considering the priesthood when it dawned on me that I could still wear dresses, fuck boys, and live in a big house filled with Catholic kitsch without becoming a priest.)

Good for you, Dan Savage: you despise Jesus Christ and Christianity and the Catholic Church as much as your Democrat Party and your war-on-religion president.

You’ve got to start somewhere, so follow the path of societal acceptance for depraved behavior the way the left has ALWAYS done it before: demand that they be viewed as “human just like everyone else” and demand that they be accorded rights and respect.  THEN you later demand that since they’re decent, respectable people their vile behavior can’t be viewed as vile anymore.  It’s been part of their playbook over and over again and it worked which is why America and Western Europe is so astonishingly morally-velocitized with behavior that was utterly unacceptable just a generation ago being openly celebrated now.  So let’s “Play it again, Sam” with pedophiles.

We’re told over and over again that it is a “scientific fact” that homosexuals are born gay and therefore it’s clearly okay to be gay.

Well, if you’re born gay, you’re born pedophile too.  And therefore it’s okay to sodomize your little Johnny while you’re not looking.  And what if little Johnny wants to be sodomized?   And it is not one iota less okay to be a pedophile than it is to be gay.  Because the exact same justification for the one justifies the other.

For the factual record, Barack Obama is publicly on the record supporting the sodomy of children in his czar selections.  The very same Obama who said, “ “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself” surrounded himself with a czar who openly promotes homosexuality in public schools and smiled down at a boy who told him he was being sexually molested by an older man.

Don’t you think for one nano-second that this incredibly vile and blatantly evil idea of promoting pedophilia is not right now at the heart of the Democrat Party today.

But you need to understand something: it’s not just pedophiles who ought to be demanding societal embrace and acceptance on the basis of liberal presuppositions.  Because the same evidence that allegedly justifies that people are “born gay” likewise justifies that people are born violent:

The Violence Gene
Impulsive aggression can be inherited.
by Victor Limjoco
published online April 14, 2006

With swelling prison populations, researchers are trying to understand the biology behind aggressive behavior. National Institute of Mental Health scientist Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg is looking for clues to how genes wire our brains early in life.

“One of the most fascinating things,” Meyer-Lindenberg says, about this field of science called psychiatric genetics, “is how it is possible that genes [can] encode for molecules that affect something as complex as behavior, even psychiatric illness such as depression and social behavior.”

He’s focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a particular form of a gene had a significantly higher risk of violence, but only in certain populations.

Genes can affect complex behaviors like aggression, because they direct the production of proteins – the building blocks of living systems. Certain types of proteins, called enzymes, break down chemicals in the brain, most notably, serotonin – a chemical messenger in the brain that helps brains cells communicate to each other.

To isolate how a variation in this gene, called the L version of MAO-A, might affect the wiring of the brain, Meyer-Lindenberg took MRI brain scans of more than 100 healthy volunteers. Since this genetic variation is common in our population, some of the volunteers had this variation, and some didn’t.

He showed them pictures of angry and fearful faces and other disturbing images, like those of an angry dog or of a gun pointed towards the screen. 

As he wrote in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” those with the aggression-related form of the gene responded to the pictures with increased activity in the amygdala – the brain area that detects danger, but less activity in the cingulate cortex – the brain region that is believed to control aggression.

These brain patterns have been linked to impulsive violence, but Meyer-Lindenberg cautions in his paper, ” …because our sample was psychiatrically normal, the variation observed is clearly compatible with normal mental health and does not imply or suggest increased risk for violence in our sample.” 

There are many possible factors at work, he says, and violence is an extremely complex behavior. “Whether or not any given person in any given situation will become violent is known to be almost impossible to predict.”

But the findings are still significant, Meyer-Lindenberg says, because, ” …it gives us a handle for the first time into a genetic risk for violence.” 

To see live video of this story, please visit our partner www.sciencentral.com

And so when I finally lose it and grab my baseball bat and beat every liberal I come across to a violent and gory death, you liberals had damned well better smile tolerantly and say, “I’m so happy that you’re finally free to express your true self.”  And don’t you ever forget that you can’t blame a person for violent behavior any more than you can blame that homosexual.

I’ll bet that the same research proves that babies have a genetic predisposition to be aborted, too.

Unless you possess something called moral common sense – but that would automatically exclude you from being a Democrat, wouldn’t it?

For the record, I don’t doubt that people have genetic predispositions to crappy behaviors BECAUSE I’M A CHRISTIAN WHO READS HIS BIBLE AND READ ABOUT THE FALL OF MAN INTO SIN.  But I also know that the same God who created us created us in His image.  And part of the essence of the Imago Dei is personal freedom and personal responsibility.  Maybe I was born with the deck stacked against me in some way or ways; but I guarantee you that somebody else was born with that same deck stacked even worse against him or her – and that person triumphed over that and a lot of other hereditary obstacles.

Atheists, secular humanists, scientific materialists and liberals cannot comprehend that humans actually have something called free will and can and should be held accountable for their attitudes and actions.  They’re wrong and literally destroy their very own arguments in being wrong:

But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain. — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 55-56

I simply point out to liberals that MY brain was the product of an intelligent designer and is fearfully and wonderfully made, whereas YOUR brain is the random agglomeration of molecules that happened to come together for no particular reason and I should therefore trust my opinions a lot more than I trust yours.

Liberals – be they political or theological (they’re invariably the same people, for what it’s worth) – have abandoned so many truths that it is becoming increasingly impossible for them to comprehend ANY truth at all.  And that’s why we’re seeing more and more craven jackasses like Dan Savage crawling out of the left.

The Bible describes the progression into total depravity:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. – Romans 1:18-28

And so we have the map of the degeneration of man from the Imago Dei to Democrat.

Why would I say that?

Consider the passage about exchanging the worship of a Creator God for “nature” and read the following quotes from the left:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
 - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
- UN Agenda 21

The essence of their agenda is profoundly anti-God and anti-man:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we need is the right major crisis…”
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
- David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

And as a result of their worship of the creature rather than the Creator, the left despises the capstone of God’s creation – man himself:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”  – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living  would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;  the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.  We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

I believe I have amply established that if you look at the left, you look at the heart of evil and the bottom “whale-crap” level of depravity as set forth by the Word of God in Romans chapter one.

Democrats are 100% responsible for the murder of FIFTY-FOUR MILLION innocent human beings through the abortion mills that they and they alone champion.  The shocking moral crimes of the Democrat Party dwarf even Adolf Hitler’s.  And Democrats who think that they aren’t responsible for that slaughter because they don’t believe developing children in the womb are human beings are going to be every bit as surprised as the Nazis who will be shocked to find out that JEWS are actually human beings.

And in their very own words they are literally out to exterminate at least half and as many as 95% of all the human beings who are living on planet earth right now.

When God said, “all those who hate Me love death” in His Word (Proverbs 8:36), He knew in His divine foreknowledge that the Democrat Party was coming in the last days.

You might be a Democrat saying, “I don’t support any of this crap.”  I point out that you are in fact a liar and a fool: BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP THAT YOU HAVE KEPT IN POWER DOES.  And when you vote Democrat, you vote for the hellish leadership and the hellish agenda of the Democrat Party.  And you will one day be held to account. 

You read Romans chapter one and you see the complete degeneration of the human race into abject depravity and it reads “one day the Democrat Party will come.”  Because the radical environmentalism and the radical homosexual agenda that God warned about are the heart and soul of the Democrat Party today.  Isaiah 5:20 summed up the Democrat Party’s mindset in the words:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

Micah 5:2 sets forth a similar warning – “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones” – in words that ought to remind you of what happens to innocent babies during the horror of abortion.

Don’t think for a second that the words, “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left,” don’t apply to modern liberals.

Let me warn you: the beast is coming.  I’ve warned about that soon-coming day many times on this blog.  The policies of the socialist left – and most certainly the policies of American Democrats – has dramatically increased the pace by which the beast is coming.  Soon the world economies will collapse, and the only question is whether that collapse will be led by socialist Europe imploding first or Obama’s God damn America imploding first.  In Europe, countries that barely even TRIED austerity as the only possible means to deal with their socialist-caused debt crisis are now demanding that they dive further into socialism – in effect saying the answer to solving the problem of crippling debt is to dramatically accelerate the rate of debt-spending.  France is poised to elect open socialists.  That is the way to hell, and the rest of the world will ultimately follow France into hell.  In the ruins that we can already see coming, just as we can already hear the coming hoofbeats of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, there will emerge a man who will come to the rescue to save the world from the collapse that socialism created.  The left believes government is the only solution to the problems of man and society.  Essentially, they see big government as savior.  Worship of the state is their real religion.  And don’t mistake me: the Democrat Party in God damn America will gladly worship him and take his mark.  It won’t take long – only seven years – for every promise and every premise of the “global unity” that the left has been hungrily seeking to turn into total hell on earth.  And then every baby-murdering Antichrist-worshiping Democrat will get the eternity they sowed for themselves.

We live in an OWS/Occupy Movement versus Tea Party world.  And we can see that a growing number of people in America and around the world are getting ready to worship the beast.