Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

The REAL ‘War On Women’ Party Rears Its Ugly, Mysoginist Head (Um, That’s The Democrat Party, You Know)

July 17, 2013

“War on women.”  That’s what Democrats and liberal feminists said of the Republican Party.  Because the Republican Party didn’t want to pay for liberal activist Sandra Fluke’s birth control.  The fact that Sandra Fluke outright lied about the cost of birth control (she dishonestly and frankly idiotically claimed that it cost $3,000 when in reality it cost $324 to cover the same period) didn’t matter.  Nor did it matter that in fact she easily could have accessed FREE birth control in the form of condoms from numerous sources.  The fact that Sandra Fluke as a Georgetown law school student was willing to pay $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER for her hoity-toity college but felt that birth control for $5 a month at Sam’s Club was too expensive and an outrage for women to have to buy didn’t matter.  The fact that an average Georgetown law school graduate starts out at $165,000 a year and what she was demanding was in fact a subsidy for the wealthy didn’t matter.  And of course it most certainly did not matter that Sandra Fluke literally enrolled in Georgetown – a CATHOLIC university – just so she could be a treacherous fifth column and sue them from within.  All that mattered was that demon-possessed Democrats had a slanderous rhetorical assertion and liberals are the kind of people who would much rather believe slanderous rhetorical accusations than actual reality.

You want to see which party is the real “War on Women” party in terms of the actual reality that every liberal must steadfastly ignore so they can continue to believe all the crap they believe instead?

You guessed it.  The Democrat Party.  It was true last year and it is every bit as true this year.  The Party of Weiner and the Party of Spitzer is the DEMOCRAT Party.  It’s okay to stomp on women.  Just as long as you’re a liberal.

Liberal journalist Nina Burleigh once had this to say about Bill Clinton:

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And of course, Bill Clinton would have happily thrown down the knee pads for Nina so she could serve and service her master.  The only problem was he was too busy receiving just worship from the lips of a young female intern named Monica Lewinsky whose father had donated money to Clinton’s campaign.

Pardon me for editorializing here, but that ugly mindset really encompasses liberalism.  Liberals are people who want the government to step in and do everything for them in exchange for their worship of the state and their vote for the party that seeks more and more and more power for that State.  They want your vote, of course, but a vote and getting down on your knees to give a blowjob is the true manifestation of liberalism’s worship of power and those who hold power.

I think of the utterly warped and frankly demonic and hateful worldview of Nina Burleigh and all the liberal feminists just like her.  I think of how abortion is “pro-woman” any more than it is “pro-child” to murder a child.  Do you know who abortion kills?  Today, there are more than 60 million women “missing” in Asia alone because of sex-selective abortion.   Millions of men in China – more than 24 million - will never have the possibility of having wives because so many women have been murdered via abortion that there is a radical imbalance in the gender populations.  So many girls have been murdered and simply do not exist that it cost ten years’ worth of income to have a wife in that “pro abortion society.”  And no matter what pro-abortion people may tell you, they are very much FOR forced abortions that terrorize and maim hundreds of millions of women.  400 million women have been forced to have abortions against their will in China alone, leaving a bloody path of misery and suicide and suffering OF WOMEN in its wake.  People like Nina Burleigh who want legal abortion are the guarantors of this vile demonic crime against women.  Particularly given the fact that liberal feminists are every bit as “pro-big government” as they are “the right to choose” abortion.  And if a woman should have the right to choose,” then on what basis does the state not have the right to choose?  Particularly in the leftist totalitarian societies where the state has been given the power to “choose” everything else???  And to take that stand because you are “pro-woman” is insane to the point of being demon-possessed.

“Real women” are wives and mothers; they are not single sluts whining about the need for their ultimate Man, their Savior, big government, to provide birth control for them.  And they most certainly aren’t women who murder their babies.  And to drive the point home, “real women” are most definitely NOT women who put down their damn kneepads for Bill Clinton or for any other big government bureaucrat for that matter.

We go back to the father of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, for the genesis of this perverted party.  Wilson acknowledged in Congressional Government that “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  And it was his many statements like that prompted historian Walter McDougall to sum up Woodrow Wilson thus: “If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson, it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”  Wilson argued as president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart the divine will.  Whereas conservatives believed that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the father of the progressive movement exalted in power and then more power, and believed that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side.

Jonah Goldberg summed it up this way:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.

Liberal men receive that worship, and liberal women can’t wait to throw down their kneepads and give it to them in one form or another.

That, for the record, is called “women’s liberation” by liberals.  I call it the lowest form of servitude imaginable.

I know that I would rather die than stand in some line with my “presidential kneepads.”  Which is what separates me from liberals.  I demand a government that stays off my damn back, not one that I should slavishly worship.  And I don’t have to thank my government for getting off my back and allowing me my freedom because the Declaration of Independence of MY founding fathers declares that my government OWES that to me.

I know, I know.  That’s just me.

Anyway, end of digression.  Let’s get back to this realization that if you want to look at the party of true “war on women,” look no further than at the Democrat Party.

Consider this editorial from a liberal in the liberal Los Angeles Times:

Women to L.A. City Hall: Remember us?
Deplorably, as of today is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Since the LA Times staff butchered the grammar so badly, I’ll quote Lindsay Bubar and yes, our heroine Sandra Fluke:

Now, women must once again ask the city’s leaders to “remember the ladies” because, deplorably, there is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Democrats have OWNED Los Angeles for decades.  They have OWNED it.  And just like Obama’s inner circle, no damn chicks are allowed.  Not without the proper knee-attire, anyway.  Democrats in a city that they own don’t have a single woman in office.

And women on the Democrat Party’s actual view of the world frankly ought to throw down their kneepads, get down on their knees, and shut the hell up: because Anthony Weiner says that it is inconsiderate and frankly rude to try to talk when you’re satisfying “The Weiner.”

And, with that, let’s consider the very first Democrat Mayor of San Diego in over 20 years.  And what a misogynist swine he is.  This turd’s own supporters are bringing up these charges.  The young fiance of this old piece of garbage broke up with him citing the fact that Filner “became increasingly abusive toward her and began sending sexually explicit text messages to other women in her presence.”

Frankly, according to the tenants of Bob Filner’s liberalism, I don’t know what Filner did wrong: he was merely demanding what he was entitled to, after all.  You get your welfare check, and he gets his something-something.  And Bob Filner is most certainly pro-abortion and therefore every bit as entitled to the adoration of liberal women like Nina Burleigh as Bill Clinton was.

But again, don’t ask me: ask Bill Clinton and his blowjob servant cum “journalist” Nina Burleigh.  But don’t bother trying to ask the city of Los Angeles or the administration of Barack Obama unless you’re a guy – because they won’t let you in the door.

Don’t tell me that the Republican Party is the party of war on women.  At least not until every single Democrat on earth has been hunted down, anyway.

Update: It turns out that Bob Filner CO-FOUNDED the Democrat Party’s Congressional Progressive Caucus alongside Nancy Pelosi.  This turd is classic, uberliberal through-and-through.

And Democrats knew FULL DAMN WELL about what was going on and the real party of the “war on women” couldn’t have given less of a damn.  Quote:

Former assemblywoman Lori Saldana: San Diego Democrats previously warned about Bob Filner
Past party leaders aware of allegations by women
Posted: 07/13/2013 Last Updated: 3 days ago

SAN DIEGO – Former state assemblywoman Lori Saldana told Team 10 she warned San Diego Democrats about Mayor Bob Filner’s treatment of women.

On Friday, she said she took her concerns directly to the party’s chairman.

I went to the leader, the elected leader of the county party,” Saldana said. “I expressed to him my concerns. Did he take strong enough action to make sure things would improve Apparently not.”

What did the Democrat Party completely not give a flying damn about?  Here’s a partial list:

  • the mayor has a modus operandi, a way of getting women alone and forcibly kissing and touching them
  • Filner grabbed the woman’s breast, putting his hand beneath her bra, and forced his tongue down her throat.
  • Gonzalez described certain moves Filner had that earned names among those who know him, like the “Filner dance” and the “Filner headlock.” The former was the dance they allege Filner did when he kissed a woman who was pulling away; the headlock, an overly friendly way of pulling women close to him so he could isolate them.
  • Gonzales related details from the victim who was in Filner’s employ — he said early on in the mayor’s term, she complimented the mayor, telling him he was doing a good job. The mayor responded that he would do a better job if she gave him a kiss. She laughed it off as a joke, Gonzalez said, but he said she soon became aware that the mayor was serious, continuing to harass her and others both physically and verbally.
  • “There is no circumstance under which it would be appropriate for the mayor to enter into an elevator with my client or any person who he employed and to tell them that they would do a better job on that floor if they worked without their panties on,” but that, Gonzalez said, is precisely what happened.
  • Victim Donna Frye called him “tragically unsafe for any woman to be around.”

Anybody who wants to tell you that the Republican Party has a “war on women” because Republicans believe that FEMALE babies ought to have their right to live are simply evil.  Period.

Update, July 23: I suppose I invoked the demonic little turd by saying his name, didn’t I?  But it turns out that Anthony Weiner is at it again.  Yes, at least a FULL YEAR after getting busted for “sexting” any woman who would lower herself to online sex with a rodent, Weiner got busted again.  This time – under his online name “Carlos Danger” – Weiner promised a young woman a condo and even suggested he could get her a job at liberal “news” source Politico.   The address of the condo is known: 1235 S. Prairie Ave.  Weiner wanted to set her up so he could meet her there for sex.

That is so damn Democrat Weiner – who is staying in the race because he knows that Democrats are moral cockroaches – that he ought to be praised by the Democrat Party.  All Weiner wants is to be able to selfishly exploit a young woman in return for providing her welfare.  THAT IS THE DEMOCRAT WAY.  THAT IS ALL DEMOCRATS STAND FOR.

The fact that it is demonic is entirely besides the point.

Update, July 25: Anthony Weiner says he won’t pull out of the race; like this turd would ever “pull out” of ANYTHING once he’s got his little weiner in it.  This is the story that just keeps showing us the REAL face of the Democrat Party.  We now know the name of ONE (there being about a half a dozen other new women) who came forward: Sydney Leathers.  And we know she’s an uber liberal.  First off, let’s go back and establish the pattern of liberal women showering their liberal government gods with sexual worship.  Remember our “journalist” Nina Burleigh and what she said of her government-as-savior-and-lord god Bill Clinton?

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And I said in this article, published days before the Weiner sexting scandal part TWO broke that was just so damn typical of liberal feminists it wasn’t even funny.  And so we’ve got our case in point example of the day in Sydney Leathers, who said of Anthony Weiner:

“I basically worship the ground you walk on.”

And:

“He’s [Weiner] my hero.”

And, just like Barack Hussein Obama and every OTHER Democrat cockroach who keeps crawling into government life, Leathers now says that Weiner made her “very lofty promises” – and utterly failed to keep them.

I think of our liar-in-chief and all the stinking pile of lies he told just to impose his fascist takeover of the healthcare system: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan; my Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care; my Obamacare won’t increase the deficit; my Obamacare will create millions of jobs.  Liberal women LOVE to be lied to; it’s only the truth and those who tell it that they despise.

It must be wonderful to be a Democrat male.  You get to be worshipped by stupid, morally-depraved women.  You get to get all sorts of “weiner benefits” in exchange for making all kinds of promises that you never have to actually keep.  And that gravy train is going to continue until you either die or until the REAL Messiah returns.  At which time you will burn in hell along with all your stupid floozies who kept voting for you.

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

November 12, 2012

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UPTHAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

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

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

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

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

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

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

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

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.

Why Wasn’t Bill Clinton Responsible For The DotCom Collapse And 9/11 When Bush Is Still Responsible For Obama’s Economy FOUR YEARS LATER???

October 1, 2012

As we near the end of Obama’s FOURTH YEAR IN OFFICE, we had an amazing claim from our blamer-in-chief:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

In his devastating Washington Post fact check that gave Obama 100% of the pinnochios for the worst possible example of lying, “Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies.”

Four years.  It took the media four freaking years to say, “ENOUGH WITH YOUR DAMNED LYING EXCUSES!!!”  FOUR YEARS.

George Bush gave us $4 trillion in debt over eight years and Obama said that was “irresponsible” and even “unpatriotic.”  Obama has given America $6 trillion in debt in just four years.  And a hell of a lot more than that, if you look at our actual debt which is now well over $222 trillion.

I point out in a comment to a liberal demagogue how Obama tries to blame Bush for the massive spending.  Bush left office having produced a budget containing a $400 billion deficit that Democrats decried for the cuts.  What Obama then does is spend the first nine months of his presidency spending like a lunatic: he spends $79 billion of taxpayer money on his GM bailout – and of course has taken complete credit as the president who saved GM – while blaming Bush for its entire cost.  Obama spends $862 billion – which according to the CBO will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 trillion – on his stimulus.  Then in March 2009 Obama spends another $410 billion in his Omnibus bill.  Meanwhile, Obama is spending the second half of the $350 billion in TARP funds that he voted for and which funds he demanded.  So what Obama dishonestly does is add all that spending up – HIS OWN spending – and attributes it to Bush so that he can claim this horrendous deficit that he “inherited.”  And so Obama artificially and deceitfully manufactures this enormous Bush deficit that he’s somehow a victim of – even though ninety percent of the spending in that deficit is HIS.

But that’s just the beginning of Obama’s dishonesty.  Look what he does to “the two wars.”

First the Iraq War.  Bush WON the Iraq War before Obama took office and signed the status of forces agreement before Obama took office.  We had won the war such that Bush was beginning to withdraw surge forces as early as 2007.  And yet somehow when US troops finalize their withdrawal according to Bush’s victory and according to Bush’s status of forces agreement, it is Obama who takes full credit.  Joe Biden actually had the chutzpah to claim that the Iraq War victory that he and his boss Obama had done everything they could to prevent was going to be “one of Obama’s great achievements.”  What Obama then does is equally despicable: he assumes in his numbers that the Iraq War that was already won when he came into office would have gone on forever if Messiah Obama had not won it, looks at the high-point of Bush’s spending during the war and creates another “baseline,” and then announces that in winning the war he has saved America more than $700 billion.  That Obama can spend on his policies while simultaneously blaming that spending on Bush.

Now the Afghanistan War.  Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):

Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War.  Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation.  Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq.  Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead.  That is literally what Obama effectively said.  And Obama is saying, “It’s not MY fault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.”  And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.

Let me move on to the economy.

You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited???  Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” - the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

And I actually failed to mention Paula Jones, who successfully SUED Bill Clinton for his sexual harassment.

Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy.  Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.

But I’m just getting started.

Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth).  Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.

It wasn’t George Bush who decimated the CIA; it was Bill Clinton:

Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:13 a.m. EDT
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA

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

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

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

 “Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

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

The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.

“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”

Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.

Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”

What Clinton did to the CIA he did to the Pentagon and the military.  He gave them less and less and less money while simultaneously tasking them with more and more and more costly missions.

Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.

It was after that disaster that an emboldened Osama bin Laden said:

Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …

And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind.  And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCE blame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession?  Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELY Bill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”???  Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts.  And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.

Why?!?!?  Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?

You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit.  And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.

Is Obama Able To Finally Keep A Damn Promise And Turn America Around? Mr. Disbarred ‘It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word ‘Is’ Is’ Says Yes He Can!

September 6, 2012

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech.  If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison.  Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me.  Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea.  It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried.  It is bankrupting Europe as we speak.  And it won’t work here.  But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats?  Probably zero.  But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It comes down to this: Bill Clinton was a president who got his ass historically kicked for his party’s failures in 1994.  And as a result of that asskicking, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate.  And as a result of that repudiation, Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” and began to govern NOT as a liberal like Obama but as a moderate who compromised and worked with the Republican Party.  And as a result of that “era of big government is over” governance, America got a balanced budget and began to thrive under grand tax cuts like the capital gains rate that Clinton cut from 28% to 20%.  That Republican-style tax cut unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to MORE THAN TRIPLE.

That, for the record, is because Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress.  Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism.  Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate.  George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why every single time I hear a Democrat mention “Republican obstructionism” I can know that I am dealing with a completely dishonest human being and that it is time to move on.  Because you have got to be an abject lying hypocrite to say that after George Bush tried not once but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the collapse of those two institutions which triggered the mortgage-market meltdown in 2008.  When you look at the FACT that conservative economists literally PREDICTED the collapse when Democrats empowered Fannie and Freddie to give mortgages to people who could not possibly afford to pay their loans; when you look at the FACT that Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY entities that were empowered to create the subprime-based mortgage backed securities that became the “toxic assets” that poisoned the portfolios of suddenly bankrupted firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch; when you look at the FACT that as this disaster was building and building and building after Bill Clinton expanded the disasterous loan program, and that Democrats in Congress rabidly refused any kind of reform of these suicidal policies when there was still time to fix what was broken, you are simply a fool if you don’t acknowledge that it was DEMOCRATS who were the obstructionists.  And all you people are for whining about Republicans is DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.

And somehow Bill Clinton managed to completely omit the FACT that he created a financial collapse and resulting serious recession of his own in the DotCom Bubble collapse that resulted in George Bush watching $7.1 trillion in wealth vaporized while the 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio valuation was annihilated.  And the only reason that recession isn’t well-remembered is that the 9/11 disaster that resulted from Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and the CIA and our intelligence apparatus and leaving us both weak and blind even as he emboldened Osama bin Laden to view America as a weak “paper tiger” that was “ready to be cowed by an attack.”

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president.  And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah.  They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.

June Jobs Report: Disgraceful Job Numbers For A Completely Failed President

July 6, 2012

80,000 jobs.  Do you know how pathetic that is?  We need an absolute minimum of 125,000 jobs a month (in light of our 313 million citizens it’s more like 200,000) just to begin to keep up with population growth.  And when you consider Obama’s godawful labor participation rate and the number of working-age Americans who have just been cast out during the cancer of this presidency, it is an abject disgrace.

But here’s the thing: you listen to Obama campaign and you’d think the last four years didn’t happen.  He’s mouthing the same garbage that he was blathering when he was running for president in 2008.  Nothing bad has happened (“the private sector’s doing fine”) or it’s anybody and anything else’s fault but the man who sits behind “the buck stops here” desk in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama is the most narcissistic, the most ignorant, the most naive and the most demagogic president America has ever seen.  Bar none.

Obama told us that the answer to the bad economy was a government takeover of the private economy via his stimulus.  He took office when unemployment was 7.6 percent.  If his stimulus passed, he promised, unemployment would never get to 8 percent – and in fact by this time (July 2012) unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  History proves that Obama was completely wrong and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to get an economy moving.  All he can do is count on people to believe the same lies he’s been making for years and idiotic things.

One of the idiotic things you’ve got to believe is a flip side of Obama’s “I’m the president who got bin Laden” argument.  On this view, had George Bush had another term or even two more terms, he never would have been able to get bin Laden.  And of course Bush couldn’t have got bin Laden because he’s not Obama, and only Obama could have ever got bin Laden.  It doesn’t matter if the military loved Bush far more than Obama, or that the esprit of the CIA was far, FAR higher under Bush; only Obama could possibly have got bin Laden.  End of discussion.  It wasn’t just a matter of time as Bush said it would be; it was Obama personally nailing bin Laden with his sheer magnificent wonderfulness.

If you apply this same mindset to Bush and the economy, we had a terrible economic hit (actually caused by liberals who recklessly ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, but that’s another story) and as Bush left office we were lost 700,000 jobs in just one month.  And the religious doctrine that all Democrats must believe as an article of their faith in messiah Obama is that if Bush were still president today, we would have continued to lose 700,000 jobs every single month and unemployment would be 30 percent today.  And of course Obama’s otherwise godawful performance now looks GREAT if you consider the 30 percent unemployment that we would of course had had under George Bush.  Never mind facts like no recession has ever lasted forever; and never mind that there have only been TWO times when America didn’t come roaring back from a bad recession and both occurred under socialist presidents (Obama and FDR).  The average recession lasts 11 months.  And historically we get very strong recoveries out of recessions.  But if Bush were still president it would have lasted forever and ever and ever.  And only messiah Obama can possibly deliver us.  Because Mitt Romney is the devil.  And do you want a rich, evil, vulture capitalist vampire monster to be your president when you could have more Obama instead???  Hint: if you say “yes” you’re clearly a racist.

So we listen to Democrats demonize “the failed Republican policies” that got us into this terrible mess and we believe their narrative that of course Obama must never be blamed for anything negative but must be given total credit for anything positive.  We are taught to not remember that George W. Bush – who himself inherited a terrible recession with the DotCom bubble burst that happened on Clinton’s watch and which wiped out $7.1 trillion in American wealth - ended his presidency with a 5.26 percent overall unemployment rate.

5.26 percent.  That’s not bad for a president who inherited the DotCom bubble collapse which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq Exchange valuation before we here hit on 9/11 due to Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and intelligence budgets while he emboldened Osama bin Laden into believing that America was a paper tiger.

If we extrapolate pure liberal demagoguery and simply utterly refuse to consider history, then Obama is the answer.  Otherwise this pathetic president truly and profoundly sucks.

So let’s let the messiah who has an average unemployment rate of 9.16 percent through June 2012 assure us that the president who had a 5.26% unemployment rate was terrible for jobs.  And we’ll believe him because this is God damn America and God damn America is under a spirit of delusion.

Yesterday (July 5) I had CNBC’s Larry Kudlow program on, and Kudlow had two economists representing a liberal (Dean Baker) and conservative (David Goldman) perspective.  Baker had an optimistic view, believing that the Labor Department release today would show that we created a lousy but-comparatively great 165,000 jobs in June; Goldman believed the report would be even worse than the economists’ consensus view of 125,000 jobs and we’d get only 100,000 jobs.  To make it even more interesting and show just how LOUSY liberals and liberalism are, Baker demagogued Goldman and accused him of merely ticking off “talking points” as compared to Baker who was of course examining the NUMBERS.

And Dean Baker documented just who was the ideologue living in a world of talking points: 80,000 jobs.  Not even HALF of his shockingly idiotic estimate.  And it was the conservative and his “talking points” who was right, right, RIGHT.

If it was a street fight, Goldman would be standing over Baker’s corpse and liberalism would be lying on the street DEAD.  But you just can’t kill this failed ideology of liberalism off in a “civilized” world.  They just get to keep screeching to fools and counting on the fact that there will always be ignorant, stupid, depraved people who believe that somebody else ought to be forced to support their failed lifestyles.

Stop and think about the difference of this “cancer presidency” and the Reagan recovery.  As voters considered re-electing Ronald Reagan, GDP was surging to 8.5 percent.  Under Obama, it’s 1.2 percent and we’re facing a double-dip recession.

Newsbusters has a great documentation of how incredibly propagandist the mainstream media was.  In May, 1984, when the jobs report for Ronald Reagan reported 269,000 jobs, the New York Slimes actually arbitrarily revised it DOWN by 19,000 jobs to 250,000 ostensibly to keep the numbers in increments of 50,000.  So if the New York Times were fairly “reporting” on Obama today, we’d have only 50,000 jobs created, wouldn’t we?  And whereas Obama’s numbers keep getting revised DOWN, Reagan’s for some mysterious reason were being revised UP: the revised jobs report for May, 1984 actually showed growth of 363,000 jobs.   Compare that to Obama’s jobs number above – recognizing that Reagan’s number was when we had a population of 235 million people versus 313 million today - and tell me that Obama isn’t wildly failing the American people.

The worst lies, according to the “lies, damned lies and statistics” proverb, are statistics.  And when liberals control the statistics, you get great news being depicted as lousy news and you get lousy news being depicted as great news.

Your biggest problem in being able to know the truth is that most of our “journalists” are Marxist propagandists who could have easily fit in at TASS during the Soviet days.

Ultimately communist “journalists” blamed seventy years of bad weather for why they couldn’t keep up with Ronald Reagan and an America that was being ran under conservative Republican policies.

And Obama is one of those Marxist ideologues trying to explain away failure and marginalize Reagan.  He makes me SICK with his rabid dishonesty.

Obama keeps demonizing Romney as standing for the “same failed Republican policies of the past.”  JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN’S.

If you want to see “the failed policies of the past” you just take a look at Barack Obama’s utterly failed liberal policies of the last four years.  And as much as Obama has demonized George W. Bush, Barack Obama has never once even in his very best month been anywhere CLOSE to George Bush’s very worst month of unemployment.

Bill O’Reilly interviewed Bill Clinton and asked a question: Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama – who collected the largest revenue?

O’REILLY: I didn’t mind paying you that but do you know between… among you, Obama and Bush who had the highest tax receipts of all three of you? Do you know? Bush. So under prosperity the tax cuts under Bush more money flowed into the federal government.

Bill Clinton didn’t know (or more likely, knew but wouldn’t answer) and shook his head without responding: Bill O’Reilly supplied the answer: George Bush.  And that is because Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

For the record, if Barack Obama were held accountable to the labor participation rate that he inherited from George Bush, unemployment would be well over 11 percent right now.  The only reason that Obama’s unemployment number is as “good” as 8.2 percent is because Obama has destroyed millions of jobs and driven millions of Americans completely out of the work force where they are simply not even counted by the Labor Department.  The fact is that 88 million working-age Americans are not in the work force because of this completely failed presidency.  And the far better U-6 unemployment measurement has unemployment at 14.9%.

For the record, Bush’s U-6 rate was more than five points lower at this point in his presidency as he faced re-election.  To go with a 5.5 percent U-3 rate which is nearly three points lower.  But, hey, whatever we do, let’s not go back to “those failed policies.”

The “failed Republican policies of the past” don’t just refer to George Bush in late 2008 ( Democrats want you to believe that Bush was only president for the last few months of 2008 because the rest of his presidency looked pretty darn good); they refer to Ronald Reagan.

Let me tell you liberal pukes something: Ronald Reagan didn’t fail at NOTHIN’.

I wrote an article describing the grim economic indicators that were facing Ronald Reagan when he took office in 1980.  Jimmy Carter had said of the crisis, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Unlike Jimmy Carter – and at this point it is very obvious to say, unlike Barack Obama – Ronald Reagan had a solution.  Under Reagan’s leadership, the US economy soared into the stratosphere.  Bill Clinton became part of that Reaganomics solution when he acknowledged that “the era of big government is over” and cooperated with the Republicans who had swept both the House and the Senate in a landslide when he too had failed to accept that conservative policies WORK.

It is a solution that Barack Obama has dedicated his entire life to destroying.  Which is why Obama has never and never WILL succeed as president.

If I had Barack Obama’s performance, I would resign.  I would have held a press conference and declared, “I’m sorry.  I thought I had a plan to turn this economy around.  Clearly I was wrong.  It’s time for me to step aside and allow someone with better ideas and better leadership to help the American people.”

But Barack Obama doesn’t give one miserable rat damn about the American people.  All the people whose support Obama rode to victory are the worst impacted by the disgrace of the Obama economy: black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, female unemployment, college-age unemployment are utterly pathetic.  Last month in the “Obama recovery” minorities suffered miserably; this month their suffering got worse.  The unemployment rates for blacks shot up to 14.4 percent (14.8 percent prior to ‘seasonal adjustment’). Barack Obama is to these people as Adolf Hitler was to Germans, promising a government Utopia and producing nothing but abject ruin.

Barack Obama has declared war on the United States of America.  But instead of bullets and bombs, he has waged his war with massive and unsustainable government spending and joblessness.

Since 1976, Democrat Presidents Have A 2-1 ‘Lead’ Invoking Executive Privilege

June 21, 2012

How many times have presidents asserted executive privilege?

Here’s your list:

Jimmy Carter: 4 times
Ronald Reagan: 3 times
George H.W. Bush: 1 time
Bill Clinton: 14 times
George W. Bush 2: 6 times
Barack Obama: 2 times

For the record, Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent Desiree Rogers from testifying.  So this is at least the second time.  It’s hard to find out if he did it more; the mainstream media suffers from collectivist (which is very much like “collective,” only for Marxist propagandists) amnesia whenever it comes to Obama.

So I – being a mathematician with skills that dwarf any liberal who clearly can’t count or they’d know how wrong they are about Obama’s job numbers and his debt numbers and his deficit numbers and ObamaCare numbers and his budget numbers - took the complicated step of doing the math.

Democrats easily win the cover-up game, 20 to 10.  In sports parlance, that’s a blowout.  When it comes to lying and cover-ups, Democrats are the Harlem Globetrotters to the Republican Party’s Washington Generals.  Only in this game, the Harlem Globetrotters cheat like absolute fiends while angrily and self-righteously denouncing the Washington Generals for cheating.

So it again proves my constant statement of fact that to be a Democrat is to be a massive abject hypocrite.  Here’s Harry Reid saying that when Bush used executive privilege it was like saying, “I’m KING”:

And then there’s “King” Obama – who was mysteriously once a “harsh critic” of executive privilege:

This was back when Democrats ran Congress and therefore, in Obama’s words, it was “very appropriate” to investigate the president. Back then, in the soon-to-be “King” Obama’s demagoguery, if Bush cited privilege he was “trying to hide behind executive privilege every time something shaky is taking place.”

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Hypocrite-in-Chief is revealed for what he truly is (hint: four letter words work best).

And, for the record, you aint seen nothin’ yet on “King Obama” and executive privilege.  Obama will be using that sucker many more times, I assure you.  Because coming up is the fact that the Obama White House repeatedly leaked incredibly damaging secrets to favorable press such as the New York Times in order to bolster his image as a “strong leader” no matter how much it damaged American national security.  He’ll have to protect his lies on that one in order to avoid impeachment, too.

The only possible way to keep Obama from breaking Bill Clinton’s previously believed un-breakable record of fourteen will be if “King Obama” is a one-term president.  Because it’s usually in that second term that – in Obama’s “reverend’s” and “spiritual mentor’s” words – “the chickens come home to roost.”

Just imagine “King” Obama actually demonizing George Bush for something that Bill Clinton had just done more than twice as many times (that’s 133.33% more often for you sports fans who appreciate your statistics) as Bush did.  When I say “Democrats are cockroaches,” I know it’s wrong, and I sincerely apologize to all members belonging to the class periplaneta americana for such a harsh comparison.

Think of that: Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times.  That’s like Wilt Chamberlain’s rebounding record, only for cheating lying dirtbag slimeball weasel presidents.  But while Chamberlain’s records will likely never be broken, simply because nobody will ever physically dominate the way Wilt did, Barry Hussein is up to the challenge when it comes to pathological dishonesty.  “Hope and change” means believing Obama can dive deeper into that giant manure pile than Bill Clinton believed was even humanly possible.  I never dreamed that anyone could lie like Bill Clinton … until this turd squirted out onto the national scene.

Update, 6/24/12: Obama just “unofficially” invoked executive privilege for the third time.  After using it to keep Congress from seeing documents exposing his crimes, he just invoked it again to keep Congress from listening to the testimony of an ex-staff member.

A Week Obama Would Like To Forget Is A Week The American People Most Need To Remember Come Election Day

June 9, 2012

Let’s call it a crappy week for a turd president:

Obama’s week goes from bad to worse
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Friday, June 8, 2012

When President Obama looks back on the past week, perhaps he’ll remember fondly the pies that first lady Michelle Obama purchased for him at a bakery in Virginia – because the rest of his week was a political nightmare.

Mr. Obama’s week to forget began with a disappointing report on the economy on Friday, June 1, showing that the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent in May, up from 8.1 percent in April.

It was hardly the kind of news to give Mr. Obama momentum heading into the final five months of his reelection campaign, and he seemed subdued as he spoke to supporters that night at what should have been a raucous campaign fundraiser in his hometown of Chicago.

“We’re not where we need to be,” Mr. Obama said in the mostly quiet ballroom, referring to the jobs report. “We’ve still got miles to go on this journey.”

The president did get to sleep in his own bed in Chicago that night, something he has yearned to do. And the next day, he went for a stroll in his old neighborhood (watched closely by Secret Service agents), another act of freedom for which he’s clamored.

From there, however, things went bad in a hurry.

After Mr. Obama campaigned with former President Bill Clinton Monday night in New York City, Mr. Clinton gave a TV interview Tuesday in which he supported extending temporarily the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans to help the economy.

That ran counter to the wishes of Mr. Obama, who wants taxes to increase for families earning more than $250,000 per year.

Republicans promptly called for Mr. Obama to follow Mr. Clinton’s advice.

After Team Obama reportedly made urgent calls to Team Clinton, the former president tried to clarify his comments. It would become a harbinger for Mr. Obama’s week.

Also on Tuesday, Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin won his recall election by a comfortable seven percentage points, dealing a harsh blow to Democrats and their union allies that invested heavily in get-out-the-vote efforts. The election was viewed by many as a tipping point in rolling back the political bond between public-employee unions and Democratic office-holders.

“Bad jobs numbers and the failed Wisconsin recall probably makes this president wish he could either sleep in late tomorrow or go back in time and get things right,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

Some in the Democratic Party blamed Mr. Obama for staying out of the Wisconsin fight. About the only visible step the president took was to issue a “tweet” in support of the Democratic candidate on his personal Twitter account Monday night.

“It’s Election Day in Wisconsin tomorrow, and I’m standing by Tom Barrett. He’d make an outstanding governor,” the president tweeted, using the personal handle “bo.”

Commented Mickey Kraus at the Daily Caller, “He didn’t even use all 140 characters.” The blogger called the effort “wussy.”

Also on Tuesday, Mr. Obama lost a surrogate race in New Jersey to that pesky Clinton fellow. The president’s good friend and ally, Rep. Steve Rothman, lost his Democratic primary to Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell, who was endorsed by Mr. Clinton. Both House incumbents had been forced to run against each other by redistricting. Mr. Obama had made a show of inviting Mr. Rothman to the Oval Office on June 1 as a signal of his support, but to no avail.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama took a break from Washington by flying to California for a series of five fundraisers, including a gay-rights gala in Beverly Hills. But on Thursday, fundraising statistics released by both campaigns showed that GOP nominee Mitt Romney had surpassed Mr. Obama for the first time in May, out-raising the president’s campaign $76 million to $60 million.

“We got beat,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, although Democrats said they expected it to be a one-time blip due to Mr. Romney securing the nomination.

Mr. Obama capped off his inglorious week by holding a hastily called news conference at the White House on Friday. It turned out poorly for him.

During a discussion of the economy, Mr. Obama remarked that the “private sector’s doing fine.”

Within an hour, Mr. Romney and other GOP leaders were ridiculing the president for his comment and preparing campaign videos to exploit the gaffe.

“He’s defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people,” Mr. Romney said on the campaign trail, clearing delighting in the opportunity to fire back an accusation that the Obama campaign has used against the Republican.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, asked the president simply, “Are you kidding?”

By the end of the day, Mr. Obama was forced to clarify his comment, saying “it’s absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.”

As he walked out of that press conference Friday, a reporter called out to Mr. Obama for his reaction to the Wisconsin recall election. The president kept walking.

But before he reached the door, another reporter shouted a final question, asking Mr. Obama if he’d enjoyed the pie that his wife had purchased for him.

The president turned back momentarily, smiled, and gave a thumbs-up.

I hope you don’t hate America enough to want to inflict four more years of this loser and his loser policies on this country.

P.S. I hope Obama enjoyed his pie as much as I enjoyed watching Wisconsin overwhelmingly reject his ideology last Tuesday.

Obama Administration Claims Blue Collar Workers And Business Leaders Alike Are Disqualified To Be President

May 25, 2012

“Your job as President is to promote the common good — that doesn’t mean the private equity guys are bad guys. They’re not. But that no more qualifies you to be President than being a plumber,” Mr. Biden joked to laughter. “And by the way, there are a lot of awful smart plumbers.” — Joe Biden

A lot of “smart plumbers” who aren’t really qualified to be president, of course.

Do you know what clearly DOES qualify you to be president?

Being a Marxist community agitator and then going into the State Senate where you continually vote “present.”  Oh, and then spending 144 days as a U.S. Senator before breaking your nationally-televised promise NOT to run for president:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)

Only documented-lying Marxists need apply for the job of president, say Democrats.

At the very least we’re talking about an elitist political class of liberal bureaucrats who believe that only career bureaucrats have any business ruling and reigning from high office.

Being somebody who knows how the economy works inside and out by buying and developing hundreds of businesses, being somebody who has made payrolls, being somebody who has created budgets and business plans and product and growth strategies???  Nope.  A lifetime of that sort of experience isn’t worth a single hour of being a radical Marxist community organizer.

What’s funny is that the same damn Joe Biden who says that plumbers and private equity firm CEOs aren’t qualified to be president also pretty damn clearly stated that the guy who is now president isn’t qualified to be president.

The really good thing about being a Democrat president?

Once you get out of office you can hang with major porn starlets and find yourself with lots more women wearing blue dresses:

Slick Willie invited them over:

In a giggly interview with TMZ, the adult films stars photographed with Bill Clinton at a fundraising gala in Monaco on Wednesday explained how they met the former president.

“He kind of was looking over at us every once in awhile. And we’re huge, psycho fans of Bill. We just think he’s really cute,” porn star Brooklyn Lee said. “So we end up wandering by. And we were going to approach him to take a picture and his Secret Service sort of brushed us away. And as we were walking away, Bill actually had the Secret Service guy call us back, to come hang out.”

Of course, in Bill Clinton’s defense: absolutely NOBODY thinks that Bill Clinton is anything other than fully qualified to hang out with porn stars.  And in fact FAR more qualified than any mere plumber or business CEO.

And, of course, in spite of Bill Clinton’s lengthy personal history of sexual shennanigans, he still knows full well that the amateur, incompetent fool who is now disgracing the White House is most definitely NOT qualified to be president.

Mind you, if the American people have enough of an instinct of self-preservation left in them to vote this turd out of office, we’ll probably be seeing “the first gay president” posing with quite a few porn stars of his own:

According to Bill Clinton In Private, Barack Obama “Doesn’t Know How To Be President,’ Is ‘Incompetent,’ And Is An ‘Amateur’

May 12, 2012

It must be tough for Bill Clinton.  On the one hand, Barack Obama is the most pathetic fool who has ever disgraced the White House and he’s actively imploding America.  So Clinton ought  to denounce Barack Obama as an incompetent idiot.  On the other hand, Bill Clinton is a loyal lifelong Democrat.  So Clinton ought to support the Democrat president of the United States.

People have gone insane under less pressure than that, you know.

The following bio of Edward Klein appears on Amazon:

Edward Klein is a seven-time New York Times bestselling non-fiction author. He is also the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. Klein frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade, and currently lives in New York, New York

Let’s see: the New York Times NewsweekVanity Fair.  Three of the most leftist mainstream publications in America.  So keep that in mind when you read what this LIBERAL is reporting:

Bill blockbuster: O’s an ‘amateur’
By CARL CAMPANILE
Last Updated: 11:34 AM, May 11, 2012
Posted: 2:45 AM, May 11, 2012

Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obama — mocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims.

“The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.

The title of Klein’s explosive, unauthorized bio of Obama, “The Amateur” (Regnery Publishing), was taken directly from Bill Clinton’s bombshell criticism of the president, the author said.

RUN, BABY, RUN! A new book says Bill Clinton implored wife Hillary last summer to challenge President Obama.

“Barack Obama,” Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, “is an amateur.”

The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama’s re-election.

But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president’s home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.

“The economy’s a mess, it’s dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does,” Bill said.

Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.

Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”

But Hillary resisted the entreaties, according to two of the guests interviewed for the book.

“Why risk everything now?” a skeptical Hillary told her husband, emphasizing that she wanted to leave a legacy as secretary of state.

“Because,” Bill replied, his voice rising, “the country needs you!”

“The country needs us!” added Bill.

He later even joked about the prospect of having two Clinton presidential libraries — about the only time that Hillary cracked a smile.

“I want my term [at the State Department] to be an important one, and running away from it now would leave it as a footnote,” Hillary argued.

She said she had the option of running again in 2016.

But Bill wouldn’t let go.

“I know you’re young enough!” Bill said, his voice booming. “That’s not what I’m worried about. I’m worried that I’m not young enough.”

“I’m the highest-ranking member in Obama’s Cabinet. I eat breakfast with the guy every Thursday morning. What about loyalty, Bill? What about loyalty?” she responded.

“Loyalty is a joke,’’ Bill shot back. “Loyalty doesn’t exist in politics.”

Bill’s verbal battle with Hillary over the presidency, if anything, intensified when daughter Chelsea showed up with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky.

“You deserve to be president,” Chelsea said.

Bill was clearly pleased that Chelsea was on his side and vowed to have allies commission polls on a Hillary-Obama matchup.

“What are you trying to do — force my hand?” Hillary said.

“I want everyone to know how strong you poll,” Bill said.

Hillary said, “Go ahead and knock yourself out.”

The book’s explosive claims were shot down last night by spokesmen for the White House and the Clintons, who closed ranks last night.

Bill Clinton’s spokesman Matt McKenna said the excerpts were “totally and completely false” and called Klein “a known liar.”

Phillipe Reines, a spokesman for the secretary of state, noted that Hillary Clinton challenged the veracity of an earlier book Klein wrote about her, “Truth About Hillary.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz accused Klein of making up facts to sell books.

“Nobody in their right mind would believe the nonsense in this one, especially since both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton have been loyal and supportive of the president at every turn.”

Klein, a former editor of The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, defended the book and his earlier one as factually sound.

Meanwhile, today’s daily presidential Rasmussen Poll shows Mitt Romney ahead of the president with 50 percent to Obama’s 43 percent. It is the highest level of support the presumptive Republican nominee has received in his matchup with Obama as well as his largest lead.

Don’t think this isn’t true.  Bill Clinton has called for a corporate tax cut.  Barack Obama demonized corporations and demagogued for higher taxes on them.  Bill Clinton said the last thing the US economy needs are higher taxes.  Obama has been demagoguing higher taxes pretty much non-stop.

Barack Obama has made a mockery of the Clinton legacy, including: cutting the deficit (Obama has exploded it more than pretty much all the previous presidents COMBINED); the Defense of Marriage Act (Obama has – very much like a Chicago thug” – simply refused to uphold the law that was passed by the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and signed into law by…. President Bill Clinton; Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, low capital gains taxes (Clinton CUT them from the levels of George H.W. Bush); etc.  Barack Obama has certainly made a mockery of bothering to even TRY to work with the opposition to get a damn thing done.

I was hardly a fan of Bill Clinton.  But the man was willing to work with the Republican Party to do the things that needed to be done.  Barack Obama said, “I won” and has been shoving radical policies down the nation’s now forcibly-collectivist throat ever since.

Bill Clinton famously said the era of big government was over.  Barack Obama said that Marxist big government socialism has not yet begun to fight.

And Bill Clinton said that “Barack Obama has the political instincts of a Chicago thug.”

Don’t think for a nanosecond that the Bill Clinton who was president and who helped Hillary campaign against this “incompetent amateur” who clearly “doesn’t know how to be president” didn’t say this stuff about this fool.

Hypocrite-In-Chief Obama Calls Slick Willie BACK To Sell His ‘FORWARD’ Snake Oil

May 1, 2012

It might work in “Back to the Future”; it doesn’t work in logic.

Obama says he wants to move America “forward”:

But just like “Hope and Change,” what does that really mean?  “Forward” in which direction?  “Forward” toward communism?  “Forward” toward totalitarianism?  Just like “hopey changey,” this is an intrinsically meaningless slogan that pretends to stand for something.

Hope is looooooong gone in Ohio under Obama’s wildly failed policies (LA Times):

MINGO JUNCTION, Ohio — Hope has been absent for so long from Appalachian Ohio that many people have forgotten what it’s like.

Idle steel mills run the length of several city blocks, empty and rusting on the thickly wooded banks of the Ohio River, like hulking tombstones for a past that died and the promise that died along with it.

What optimism exists has little, if any, connection to the presidential campaign, which for all its import feels distant and somehow beside the point.

James Rogers worked happily in the mills for 23 years, until he was laid off in 2009. He is studying to be a nurse; a job, true, but one he doesn’t really want. Still, at 44 he has a mortgage, a home deep underwater and two kids to put through college. He figures healthcare offers his best shot at a reliable paycheck.

With the coal mines giving out and the steel business decimated — about 1,500 people work in the few surviving mills, compared with 30,000 at the peak — the medical industry is by far the largest employer in Jefferson County. Young people here tend to escape if they can, leaving the frail and aging behind.

To Rogers, it doesn’t matter who wins the White House in November. He’s a Democrat and supports President Obama but doubts much would change in a second term.

“We elect this guy and all they do is bicker,” said Rogers, still big and burly from his days manning a blast furnace. “Nobody will do this, nobody will do that, it’s all partisan [bull] and what did we do? We lost four years.”

That utter lack of enthusiasm, shot through with anger and cynicism, is shared by many in rural Ohio, a target state for both sides in November. Timothy Bower, 30, runs Mama G’s pizza place, a few miles up the river in Toronto. Rolling and slicing a mound of dough, he described Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, as a “typical empty suit. I don’t believe a word he says.”

Still, Romney has this going for him: He’s not Obama. The president frightens Bower with his expansive healthcare overhaul, his rhetorical shots at the rich and the red ink that has gushed over the last three years. More frightening still, Bowers said, is the prospect of Obama spared future elections and thus free to push even more radical policies.

Hope is looooooooooon gone in Los Angeles due to Obama’s policies.  South Los Angeles has a bleaker jobs picture than they had back in the day when they burned down their own neighborhoods:

Blacks in South L.A. have a bleaker jobs picture than in 1992
Median income in South Los Angeles is lower now than during the 1992 riots, and the unemployment rate has reached even more dire levels.
April 28, 2012|By Ricardo Lopez, Los Angeles Times

 Two decades after the L.A. riots brought pledges of help to rebuild South Los Angeles, the area is worse off in many ways than it was in 1992.

 Median income, when adjusted for inflation, is lower. Many middle-class blacks have fled in search of safer neighborhoods and better schools.

 And the unemployment rate, which was bad at the time of the riots, has reached even more dire levels. In two areas of South Los Angeles — Florence Graham and Westmont — unemployment is almost 24%. Back in 1992, it was 21% in Florence Graham and 17% in Westmont.

 Last summer, thousands of South Los Angeles residents showed up to a job fair that brought out almost 200 employers at Crenshaw Christian Center on Vermont Avenue. The event, organized by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), was seen by some as grandstanding.

 “People were really skeptical,” said Kokayi Kwa Jitahidi, a community organizer with the nonprofit Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. “People thought, ‘Another job fair?’”

Of course, the same people who burned down their lives in 1992 are the same people who burned down their own lives when they voted for Obama in 2008 and will burn vote to burn down their own lives again in 2012.

Well, if Obama ran on “hope and change” again, even his own voters would openly laugh in their Fool-in-Chief’s face.  Hope is gone because Obama has poisoned hope in America.  And the only “change” you’re going to see is the change to open communism and (“hopefully”) a few cents’ worth of “change” in your otherwise empty pockets.

So we’re going to go “Forward” in some nebulous undefined direction now instead.  And if we re-elect Obama, the United States is going to go “forward” into more ruin and depression and implosion than this once unconquerable nation has ever seen.

To make the hypocrisy even MORE hypocritical, Obama is selling “Forward” by pimping the past: Slick Willie Clinton is doing the voice-over for his campaign now.

What’s funniest about that is that the centerpiece of the ad is how Obama was the guy who made the courageous decision to get Obama; and the Obama campaign then asserts that Mitt Romney never would have had the balls to do that.  That ad is vile for ALL KINDS OF REASONS, as I pointed out yesterday.

Beyond all the other issues – such as the fact that Obama didn’t actually make the “courageous decision” at all; Obama delegated the decision to Admiral McRaven so he’d have a scapegoat if something went wrong; such as the fact that the decision to get bin Laden was pretty much a political no-brainer given that had Obama NOT gone in to get bin Laden he very definitely would have lived in infamy as the president who refused to get the man most responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans – there’s the fact that Slick Willie is a guy who could have prevented the 9/11 attack altogether if he’d just accepted Osama bin Laden’s head when the man was literally offered to Clinton on a silver platter by the Sudanese (and see here for more background on Slick Willie and terrorism).  If Slick Willie had wanted to be honest, he could have at least have said that Obama made the hard decision that Bill Clinton was too much of a gutless coward to make or something to that effect.  The media would have loved him even more, if anything.

“We’re going to go forward … back to Clinton.”  It works in the movies even if it has no relation to real life.  Just like Hollywood liberalism itself, which Obama exemplifies as no president ever has:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers