Posts Tagged ‘hypocrite’

‘Liberalism’ Is A Synonym For ‘Hypocrisy.’ Or To Put It Another Way, Saying ‘Liberal Hypocrite’ Is Redundant.

April 2, 2013

There is a rather stunning admission of liberal hypocrisy in the following Los Angeles Times article.  Basically, if you go to the most liberal and wealthy county in überliberal California, what you will find there is a bunch of leftwing turds who are only too happy to have programs for the poor as long as a) somebody ELSE pays for it; and b) somebody ELSE has to suffer the effects of the programs that they love to impose on everybody else.

This is Nancy Pelosi’s county, boys and girls.

Do you want to know what Democrats true views of Hispanics are?  It boils down to, “I’m all for illegal immigrants.  I think everybody should own at least one.”

Affordable housing is again a red flag in ‘green’ Marin County
The issue has long produced conflict in the eco-friendly county, California’s wealthiest. Officials are being urged to help workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000.
March 31, 2013|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

  • Advocates for affordable housing in Marin County protest before a meeting in San Rafael to discuss the issue. The push for affordable housing in California’s wealthiest county has always brought its “green” lifestyle and liberal social leanings into conflict. No Bay Area county has more protected open space — or fewer workers who can afford to live anywhere near their jobs.
Advocates for affordable housing in Marin County protest before a meeting… (Sherry LaVars / Marin Independent…)

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — After George Lucas abandoned plans to build a movie studio along a woodsy road in Marin County, he complained about the permitting process in a place so environmentally friendly that hybrid-car ownership is four times the state average.

His next move, some here say, was payback for what Lucas described in a written statement as the “bitterness and anger” expressed by his neighbors.

The creator of “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” is working with a local foundation that hopes to build hundreds of units of affordable housing on a former dairy farm called Grady Ranch, where his studio would have risen.

Now Marin County is squirming at that prospect — and it is not a pretty sight.

The issue of affordable housing in California’s wealthiest county has always brought its “green” lifestyle and liberal social leanings into conflict. No Bay Area county has more protected open space — or fewer workers who can afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

At a recent planning commission hearing, where possible sites for subsidized housing were discussed, nearly all the heated testimony had some version of: “I’m all for affordable housing, but …”

Nine days later, protesters wearing “End Apartheid in Marin County” buttons demanded that officials do something to help low-income workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000 and 60% of the workforce lives somewhere else.

The irony is not lost on Thomas Peters, president of the Marin Community Foundation, the philanthropy that is collaborating with the filmmaker to build along Lucas Valley Road. The region’s environmentally conscious lifestyle, he said, is built on the long commutes of low-paid workers whose cars choke Highway 101 to the point that “you can literally see the CO2 rising.”

“The community, to some degree, has been lulled by success in its 40-year-old determination to really protect the open spaces,” Peters said. But “it is not sustainable to hold that kind of misperception that this is all beautiful and everything can stay as it is.”

With the Golden Gate Bridge as its front door and Point Reyes National Seashore in the backyard, Marin County is blessed with some of California’s most breathtaking vistas. Indeed, 84% of its land is protected as tideland, open space, parkland, agricultural preserves and watershed.

In an effort to address climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions, the county in 2010 launched California’s first so-called community choice energy program. Marin Clean Energy purchases power for its customers from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric projects.

But Marin is near the back of the pack in the nine-county Bay Area region when it comes to absorbing predicted population growth — and is the most unwilling, said Ezra Rapport, executive director of the Assn. of Bay Area Governments.

Every eight years, California’s 58 counties are required to come up with a “housing element.” The documents are not guarantees that units will be built, but simply a demonstration that the county is zoned so growth could happen.

After the Department of Housing and Community Development produces growth estimates for each part of the state, regional governmental agencies negotiate with their cities and counties to divide up the responsibility to zone for possible future home building.

Currently, the Bay Area must plan for 187,000 new housing units by 2022, of which 110,000 must be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income families.

So how much of that burden is Marin County’s?

A total of 2,292 units, of which 1,400 must be affordable. In other words, 1.2% of the total homes and 1.4% of the affordable ones.

“It’s really a small amount of the Bay Area’s housing needs …[which are] pretty enormous,” Rapport said. “I don’t think anyone’s expecting them to rezone parkland. … But Marin should be somewhat responsible for its own growth.”

The difficulty was plain to see during the March planning commission hearing in the county’s graceful civic center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Under discussion were 16 sites that could be zoned for 30 units per acre — high density for a county that has fewer than 500 people per square mile, compared with Los Angeles County’s nearly 2,500.

Although residents were dissatisfied with all the options, Grady Ranch and a project called Marinwood Plaza near Highway 101 were among the most controversial. They also paint a stark picture of Marin County’s reluctance to build housing for its low- and moderately paid workers.

Marinwood Plaza’s location — within sight, sound and smell of the 101 — was a stumbling block for several residents who worried it would be unfair for low-income people to have to live near a source of pollution that could increase asthma rates.

“This is NOT a safe environment for humans,” said Steve and Sharon Johnson in a letter to the planning commission. “The proximity to the freeway and the particles of brake that float in the air when people put on their brakes to come down the hill will hit right where this proposed development is.”

Grady Ranch is about 31/2 miles from the 101, but that’s a problem too, said Nancy Lowry, a real estate agent who lives in the Lucas Valley area.

“There’s no public transportation,” Lowry said. “It’s 51/2 miles to the nearest grocery store, seven or eight miles from the high school. There are no buses. …You’re trying to bring in people so they can have a workforce that lives locally. But there are no services, no sewer lines, no electricity. It just doesn’t seem like the place that it should go.”

But Peters argues that the site is more than feasible. It already is zoned for housing, he said, and contentions that it is in the middle of nowhere are “laughable.”

Grady Ranch is made up of about 1,000 acres of rolling hills and bright green grassland, studded with oak trees and patrolled by wild turkeys. In the stretch separating the ranch from Highway 101, there are several subdivisions with hundreds of houses.

More than a decade ago, Lucas donated an estimated 800 acres of the ranch property to the Marin County Open Space District. Of the remaining land, only 20 to 30 acres is “actual, buildable space,” Peters said.

County planners peg the site as appropriate for around 240 units, although no plans for construction have been submitted. That, Peters said, could happen by summer.

Grady Ranch is “a grand opportunity to address a long-standing issue,” Peters said, and anyone who thinks this is payback has never spoken to the filmmaker.

“This is George Lucas. He doesn’t need to engage in small-town pique.”

That’s right.  No rich person EVER held a grudge in his life.  Rich people are your betters, and above such petty “piques” that plague the unwashed masses.  But that isn’t my axe to grind.

Note that the liberal Democrat überrich Marin County whining hypocrites literally state that they haven’t done jack diddly to create “public transportation” for the poor as their grounds for permanently zoning the poor out of their lovely but cockroach-souled leftwing hypocrite world.  We shouldn’t build the poor the homes that we force everybody else to build because we have never built the public transportation for them that we force everybody else to build.  And so being a double-hypocrite actually cancels out our hypocrisy, you see.

George Lucas is probably a hypocrite, too.  The difference is that he is so fantastically rich he will never once in his life have to mingle with these dirty poor people unless he wants to stage a photo-op to bask in their worship of him.  All the other liberals would probably have to stand in line behind these filthy unwashed Hispanics at the grocery store.  And they don’t want to do that because they are liberals and therefore turds without shame, without integrity and without honor.

This is so damn typical of liberal Democrats.  I remember Ted Kennedy – the champion of alternative energy “solutions” – as long as it didn’t block his damn view.  But of course, if it even theoretically affected him in any way, shape or form, it was whatever the current elite libspeak for “let them eat cake” turns out to be.

Let’s call it NIMLBY: Not In My Liberal Backyard.  Liberals do dishonest abject moral hypocrisy quite nimbly, it turns out.  Or maybe PIIRB: Put It In Republicans’ Backyards.  While demonizing them with every breath, of course.

This reminds me of Al Gore, who as he was pimping his green agenda – and become a billionaire convincing others to sacrifice for the environment – flew around on the WORST pollution-emitting private jet on the planet while occupying mansions that all had gigantic carbon footprints.  Oh, and then he sold his television network to a terrorist “news” company called Al Jazeera which is largely owned by oil emirates.  And tried to structure the sale to avoid paying the higher taxes he believed others should be forced to pay.  Because Al Gore is a good person for wanting other people to pay higher fascist taxes; so he shouldn’t be expected to pay the taxes himself.

It reminds me of Warren Buffet, who – in spite of the fact that he owed the federal government over a billion in back taxes (see also here)- came out with a “tax plan” that would have made life more expensive for other rich people, but – contrary to his dishonest claims – wouldn’t have affected his OWN taxes.  It only would have grabbed “other peoples’ money.”  And he deceitfully pimped this plan (along with his greedy rich selfish buddy Barack Hussein Obama who gave virtually NOTHING to charity until he decided he wanted to be president) on the basis of a false claim that he paid more in taxes than his secretary.  As usual, liberals sold their lies by telling MORE lies.

And of course the Obamas and the Bidens go on massively expensive vacations only to return (between massively expensive vacations) to hypocritically claim that we can’t afford ANY budget cuts or they’ll gut poor people’s police and fire protection.  These are people who know damn well that they’ll never be willing to pay this kind of largesse on their own tab.  But hey, they can force other people to pay for their extravagance, and so “let them eat cake.”

Obama is a man who has personally racked up more debt – and more reckelss and immoral and unsustainable debt – than any human being in the entire history of the world.  His last four budgets were so insane and so evil he couldn’t even get a single Democrat to vote for them.  The Democrat-controlled Senate under his control went four damn years without ever bothering to even TRY to pass a budget.  But that doesn’t stop him from getting another massive dose of free air time to “teach young people how to budget resonsibly.”

I could go on and on and on and on and on, ad nauseam.  These are incredibly wicked and dishonest people.  And they are hypocrites right down to the cores of their shriveled little souls.

Are You Doing Better Than You Were Four Years Ago Under Obama’s Failed Fiasco Of A Presidency? ‘No, But That’s Not The Question,’ Say His Minions

September 4, 2012

This is the key stat to the answer, “Are you better off than you were four years ago”:

Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23

Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Overall, median income is 7.2 percent

ABC News has a survey.  As of now, nearly three out of every four answer “No” to the question and say they are NOT better off under Obama.

Answer: HELL No.  You want to blame the recession and even the first year of Obama’s utterly failed presidency on Bush?  Fine.  But the fact remains that the median household income has gone down nearly TWICE as much during Obama’s “recovery” than it did during the entire recession that Obama blames Bush for.  Which is to say that even the very “best of times” under Obama’s failed presidency have paled in comparison even to the worst of times under Bush – with the very “worst” of “Bush’s times” happening while Bush was at home watching Obama stick his skinny legs up on the Oval Office desk.

THAT is what they call a “failed presidency.”  There is NO FREAKING WAY Americans are better off now than they were when this failure took office.  And when you add to that that the “failed Bush policies” led to a 5.26% unemployment rate whereas Obama’s messianic policies have led to a 9.33% average unemployment rate, well, you tell me which you like better.  Especially given the fact that when you consider people who have simply dropped out of the job market all together in despair due to Obamanomics, and when you consider the labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate under Obama is about 11.6% rather than the still-miserable 8.3%.

O’Malley: We’re Not Better Off Now
By Jonathan Miller
Updated: September 2, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.
September 2, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.

Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”

(RELATED: Axelrod Calls GOP Convention a Bust)

Responded O’Malley: “No, but that’s not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars — charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”

Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”

The most senior Obama campaign simply refused to answer the question:

David Plouffe (who frankly should have been explaining why he took money from IRAN):

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is he right, can the president argue unequivocally that Americans are better off today than they were four years ago?

DAVID PLOUFFE: Listen, George, I think the American people understand that we got into a terrible economic situation, a recession, only that the Great Depression — the only thing the country has ever seen like it. So they know we had a deep hole. It took us a long time to get into that hole, it’s going to take a long time to out of it.

First of all, Governor Romney is offering the same, exactly policies that led to the recession in the first place.

To paraphrase Plouffe’s response to Stephanopoulos’ question:

“Mumble, mumble, mumble.  Blame Bush.  Blah blah blah.  And in conclusion, blame Bush.”

If you want your president to be a demagogue who will NOT accept responsibility for his record and who will blame and lie, then Obama truly is your “hope and change” and this really is your “fundamentally transformed America.”  Because that’s all that Obama has done and it is all that he will continue to do.

And of course that “that’s what led to the recession” line might sound good, but let’s point out that RONALD REAGAN USED CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES TO PROPEL AMERICA TO 10 PERCENT GROWTH AND CREATED OVER A MILLION JOBS A MONTH.

David Axelrod took the plunge and said, yeah, we’re better under the man who lowered the level of our oceans and healed our planet before ultimately saying, okay, maybe we AREN’T better off:

“Can you honestly say that Americans better off today than they were four years ago?” Wallace pointedly asked Axelrod.

“I can say that we’re in a better position than we were four years ago in our economy, in the sense that when this president took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” Axelrod responded. “And the quarter before he took office was the worst since the Great Depression and we are in a different place.”

“29 straight months of job growth, 4.5 million private sector jobs,” the adviser cited as statistical evidence, but conceded: “Are we where we need to be? No.”

That 29 straight months of job growth might actually sound impressive if Democrats hadn’t utterly pooh-poohed George Bush when he had FIFTY-TWO STRAIGHT MONTHS OF JOB GROWTH from September 2003 to December 2007 thanks to his TAX CUTSIt takes so much freaking chutzpah to decry fifty-two months of job growth and then laud a number barely half of that as magnificent that only a Democrat could possibly be hypocrite enough to do it.  But there you have it.

Then there’s the “monkey math” that Axelrod cites: basically, it first depends on the theory that Barack Obama really didn’t assume the presidency until 2010.  It was the devil BOOSH who was president in 2009 and so all of those numbers only apply to the devil Bush.  We only take credit for things we can make look good; Bush is responsible for everything else whether it happened during Obama’s watch or not.  I say that because Barack Obama has been president NOT for 29 months, ye Democrat dumbasses, but for going on 45 months.  And it is a national disgrace that we have such a completely failed leader that he can’t even assume responsibility for over a year of his failed presidency.

Then there’s the 800,000 jobs lost a month when Obama took office.  Well, Democrats are such liars they even fabricate when they’re getting close to trying to tell the truth.  We never lost “800,000 jobs a month.”  The most jobs we ever lost was in January 2009 (during that year that Obama was president but refuses to acknowledge) when we lost 741,000 jobs.  If you’re going to round that number honestly, David, you liar, we only lost 700,000 jobs that month, didn’t we?  And for Axelrod to oh so conveniently round way, WAY up and then make it sound like it was happening every single month – we got to that 700k number in only ONE month – is a lie from a serial liar.

What’s always been interesting to me is that we had a crisis that was created by Democrat-OWNED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going bankrupt which triggered the meltdown as private banks held Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities that they suddenly discovered were “toxic assets” because the GSEs had loaded up so much bad debt in those securities that nobody could tell good debt from bad debt.  And that month, in September 2008, we lost 280,000 jobs under Bush’s watch.  In October, things looked a little better and we only lost 240,000 jobs that month.

Then America made the stupidest decision in its history and elected Obama.  And businesses immediately responded in November by giving up 333,000 jobs – nearly a hundred thousand more jobs than the month before.  The panic of a future-failed Obama presidency continued as we lost 632,000 jobs in the first full month after Obama was elected.  What kind of fool can look at this reality and say, “Obama’s election calmed frightened businesses?”  Because businesses said, “This turd is going to kill us.  Let’s cut our losses now.”  And so the month Obama took the oath of his failed office, we lost 741,000 jobs that month as businesses cut and ran on his presidency.

To document that the huge job losses that Obama demagogues actually occurred because of sheer terror of a pathetic failure assuming office, let me go back to an article I wrote in October of 2008: “Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama.”  I note an article from CEO Magazine:

People are most concerned about jobs right now; maybe they should stop listening to mainstream media ideologues and start listening to the people who actually create jobs:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”

Disastrous for the country.” That doesn’t sound good. And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s get about Barack Obama:

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

Bankrupt the country within three years.” There. You want socialism, you can have it. “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself is as broke as the defaulting homeowners and the defaulting mortgage houses we keep hearing about.

We didn’t listen to those CEOs.  And here we are very nearly damned bankrupt just as they predicted, as Democrats gather for their convention, with the national debt about to hit $16 TRILLION (now well above our entire GDP) and an actual fiscal gap of no “mere” $16 trillion but a supermassive black hole of death $222 trillion.

You want to see the market tank and employers cut their losses again?  Just re-hire Obama.  You’ll see things go to sh!t right quick as business reacts to the fiasco.

Let’s see, what did the lying dishonest weasel say back in 2008?

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” — Barack Obama, 3 July 2008

That’s right.  Six trillion dollars in debt from Obama in one four-year term is responsible and patriotic; four trillion dollars over EIGHT YEARS is “irresponsible and unpatriotic.”  Again, there’s that thingy about Democrat=hypocrite and hypocrite=Democrat.  And if you are a Democrat, it is only because you, personally, are a hypocrite and a bad person.

The 4.5 million private sector jobs that Axelrod credits Obama for first of all utterly refuses to consider that 13 first months of Obama’s presidency (to quote that Servpro commercial jingle, “Like it never even happened!”) and second of all counts all the job gains but refuses to consider the rather disturbing factoid about all of those new jobless claims that have racked up every single month during Obama’s presidency. But you see, all the job gains are because of Obama but all the nearly 400,000 job losses every single damn month four damn years after Bush left the White House are still because of the devil Bush.  Third, given our population growth, ten million Americans have actually entered the work force during Obama’s presidency; which is to say that Obama is nowhere NEAR keeping up with simple population growth even according to his own asinine horn-tooting.  And fourth, this “4.5 million jobs” is a full-of-crap talking point parroted by rabid ideologues

This turd needs to go.  He needs to go now.  And if he doesn’t go soon this country is simply doomed.

Abject Vile Obama Hypocrite Alert In Celebration Of Obama’s Milestone Of 100 Rounds Of Golf (4 Full Months Of Work Time Spent Golfing!!!)

June 19, 2012

The housing market – you know, the thing that actually blew up the economy in 2008 and hasn’t ever been fixed since – is getting worse in a fearsome sign of any chance of a recovery in the housing sector. The unemployment rate is shooting back up as the economy stagnates. Europe is very probably going to implode and create a global recession because they’ve done pretty much exactly what Obama wants to do more of here. I know that you’re very concerned, but please don’t be. Your president is doing fine. He’s relaxing, he’s getting plenty of golf in and really isn’t worrying himself at all. Thank you for caring so deeply about your messiah.

Please remember that Emperor Obama is particularly attuned to your prayers of devotion when he’s on the golf course, surrounded by the nature that he loves. And he is especially attuned to you if you give generously to his campaign.

Let’s go back to David Axelrod talking about George Bush.  Yes, it was George H.W. Bush, but one Bush is as good as another and Bush was a Republican and therefore a target for future Obama cockroach David Axelrod to demonize:

Flashback: Axelrod called Bush ‘out of touch’ for playing golf in bad economy
Published: 11:15 AM 06/13/2012

Video from 1994 has surfaced of David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, calling former President George H.W. Bush “out of touch” for “tastelessly” playing golf while trying to convince voters that the economy is improving.

“Bush tastelessly did it, often from the ninth hole, and from the cigar boat and other places,” Axelrod said.

Added the adviser: “The impression you got was that he was out of touch.”

Throughout his presidency, Obama has been known to hit the links nearly every week.

Axelrod explained in the 1994 interview that if “you cite these statistics that say the economy is improving, you almost do political damage to yourself.”

“If you stand up and claim great progress, you are only frustrating this alienated middle class more,” he said.

For the record, I’m guessing instead of “1994” it was 1992, because that was the year of the election and there was no point beating an already dead-by-sheer-demonization Bush.

Let’s consider an April 2010 (i.e., more than TWO YEARS AGO) article about Obama and the golf course:

President Obama plays more than Bush
April 20, 2010 4:29 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — Barack Obama has come in at eighth in a list of golf-playing American presidents, higher than both George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
 
Bush was known for his love of golf, but figures released by Mark Knoller of CBS Radio, the unofficial White House statistician, have revealed that Obama has played golf 32 times during his presidency — eight times more than his predecessor did during his entire tenure at the White House.
 
In fact, president Obama played a round as recently as last Sunday, when his flight to Poland for the funeral of president Lech Kaczynski was cancelled due to the volcanic ash cloud over Europe.
 
Golf Digest magazine has ranked president Obama ahead of both Bush and Reagan, but behind Bill Clinton — who was known to practise his putting in the aisle of Air Force One.

As of April 2010 – again, that’s over two years ago – BARACK OBAMA HAD PLAYED GOLF EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH DID DURING HIS ENTIRE EIGHT YEARS IN OFFICE.

But, of course, it gets worse.  Much, much worse.

Remember, Axelrod demonized Bush Sr. as “out of touch” for playing a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the sheer massive volume that his current boss has played.

In honor of that, Obama has recently reached a rare milestone for an American president who presumably has far better things to do – especially while his economy is in shambles:

MILLER: Obama’s 100th golf round
President putters while economy sputters
By Emily Miller – The Washington Times
Thursday, June 14, 2012

The next time President Obama hits the links, it will be his 100th round of golf since coming to the White House. That’s quite a milestone in just 3 1/2 years. As it takes him about six hours to drive to the greens and complete 18 holes, Mr. Obama has spent the equivalent of four months’ worth of work time golfing. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has been stuck in a sand trap.

Before Mr. Obama teed off for the first time as president, he delivered a State of the Union address that promised his new stimulus bill would “save or create 3.5 million jobs.” At that time, February 2009, unemployment was 8.3 percent and the debt was $10.8 trillion. He kicked off the golf streak on April 26, 2009, and he played a total of 27 rounds in his first year.

When he returned to the Capitol the following year, he stood in front of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with unemployment at 9.7 percent. He asked the Democratic Congress for a second stimulus and an overhaul of the health care system, and Congress obliged. Mr. Obama also said he would freeze government spending for three years, starting in 2011, but that idea got lost in the woods during the 31 golf games he played in 2010, using his personalized “44” Titleist balls, which remind haughty caddies he’s the 44th president.

By the time Mr. Obama gave his annual address to Congress in 2011, he was standing in front of new House Speaker John A. Boehner, brought in during the Republicans’ midterm wave. Unemployment was still at a high 9.1 percent. Mr. Obama announced, “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment” and demanded more money be spent. The debt hit $14 trillion.

Last year, the number of Mr. Obama’s golf outings rose to 33, and many turned out to be memorable. He was on the green on May 1, 2011, when the Navy SEALs were en route to Pakistan, cutting his game to nine holes to hear of their successful mission against Osama bin Laden. Mr. Obama’s golf partners included Mr. Boehner, former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, who got asked to tag along with the boss four times in 2011.

By the time Mr. Obama gave this year’s State of the Union address, he had 93 golf games on his scorecard. Unemployment was 8.3 percent, having never gone below 8 percent in his presidency. He took no responsibility for the $15.2 trillion debt or the nation’s credit-rating downgrade. Instead, he called for higher taxes and the “Buffett rule” while hosting the billionaire’s secretary in his guest box for the speech.

Mr. Obama had no sense of the inappropriateness of playing 99 rounds of golf while 99 percent of the country couldn’t even afford the cost or time to go once. Now he wants a second term to finish what he started. After the 100th round, voters may want to think twice about giving him a mulligan.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Barack Obama has spent four entire months of his presidency golfing.  Just so far.  Makes me pine for the days when we had Roman emperors fiddling while their city burned to the ground.  At least they didn’t spend four freaking months playing their damned fiddles.

I’ve said it so many times in my articles that it’s unreal: the quintessential ingredient of a liberal is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you are a liberal, you are a complete hypocrite without shame, or honor, or decency.  You are the kind of poisonous snake that demonizes somebody else for a tiny fraction of what you do.  You are in fact a bad person.

The same kind of person David Axelrod, senior political adviser to Barack Obama, is.

David Axelrod has always reminded me of that used car salesman who gives an already morally troubled industry an even worse name.  He’s the kind of slime who sells broken down pieces of junk to naive young kids and then relies on the cops to keep those kids’ dads from beating the crap out of him.  He’s the kind of slime who sells lies for the worst and most evil president in American history.

Let’s not forget to remember the mainstream media cockroaches otherwise known as “journalists.”  George W. Bush loved golf as much as Obama obviously does.  But the media ran stories about Bush playing golf while soldiers died screaming under his command and so George W. Bush did something that Barack Obama has never done so much as a single time in his entire life and took personal responsibility for himself and gave up golfing.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin and TASS would be so proud of their legacy in Barack Obama, David Axelrod and the American mainstream media.

Obama’s ‘Major Policy’ Speech Last Thursday Documents He Is A Failure. His Abrogation Of The Rule Of Law On Friday Documents He Is A Fascist.

June 18, 2012

I thought this blog article which cites USA Today hit part of Obama’s trouble right in the testicles:

“Major economic speech” by Obama planned for Thursday
Posted by: ST on June 13, 2012 at 9:20 am

Via The USA Today:

President Obama will seek to draw economic contrasts with Republican opponent Mitt Romney in what campaign aides are billing as a major speech on Thursday.

In announcing the address at a community college in Cleveland, the Obama campaign said the president will describe his vision as “ensuring that our economy is built to last and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Obama also plans to condemn Romney’s vision, which the campaign said is “based on the same failed economic policies that brought on the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

“Romney Economics is familiar and troubling,” said the Obama campaign. “More budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy; fewer rules for Wall Street — the same formula that benefited a few, but that crashed our economy and devastated the middle class.”

Obama is not expected to unveil any new policy proposals of his own; the president is still trying to persuade Congress to adopt elements of a jobs bill he proposed last year.

(Bolded emphasis added by me)

Translation: there’s nothing new here. It’ll just more of the same old song and dance we’ve been hearing for the last three and a half years, jacked up on spinsanity with a generous helping of predictable Democrat class warfare and demagoguery – given in front of (presumably) a captive audience of college students (shocking).

In other news, dog bites man.

BTW, here’s Obama’s fundraising schedule for this week, in the event you actually thought his “presidential responsibilities” excuse for not campaigning for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the Wisconsin recall election was legitimate. Just sayin’ …

Obama’s major speech is a giant bag of wind from the most prolific windbag who ever lived.  Check.

Obama is completely out of ideas.  Check check.

Ninety percent of Obama’s speech was just a slightly different way for Obama to demonize Mitt Romney.  And in what had been built up as a major policy speech at that.  Only ten percent of this speech Obama gave in Ohio on Thursday, April 14 AT BEST discussed what Obama would do if re-elected – which frankly amounted to a steadfast refusal to own up to ANY kind of responsibility for his last four years and a doubling down on what has already been demonstrated to have failed.  The bottom line is that we are currently cursed with a president who doesn’t want to talk about the past but doesn’t have any ideas about the future.

It’s not just me claiming Obama’s “major speech” was a major failure.

Consider leftist Jonathon Alter from MSNBC who said it was “one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard Barack Obama make.”  And that was actually KIND, given the fact that “Before the speech was over, MSNBC’s Mike O’Brien begged the president to stop.”  While conservatives, of course, are saying, “Don’t you let them interrupt you, Barry Hussein.  By all means, please continue.  You were saying the private sector’s doing fine, right?”

That’s from MSNBC, which without any question is THE most überbiased überObama propaganda out there (see here and here for a couple quick examples).

The reliably leftist Washington Post’s leftist writer Dana Milbank – and this woman is a raving leftie – said that “instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan. for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.”  This in an article titled, “Skip the falsehoods, Mr. President, and give us a plan.”

I mean, thanks for confirming what I’ve been saying all along that Obama is a complete liar without a clue or a plan, but I can’t help but admit my surprise, Dana.  I mean, coming from a woman who once argued that if Obama comes across as stupid, it’s only because he’s just so incredibly brilliant that we frankly don’t deserve his greatness.  Which of course followed the liberal script.

It’s not adequate to say that Barack Obama is a failure; because Barack Obama is an epic failure.

Essentially, Obama’s campaign is about trying to recreate his now thoroughly disillusioned 2008 base.  And the only way that he can do that – because he is a completely failed leader who cannot legislate or compromise – is to issue a “jump the shark” series of executive orders that frankly abrogate the Constitution and the rule of law in America and set a terrifying precedent.  So he demonized his rhetoric of a bogus “war on women” (see here and here and here and here for how that’s working out for him) and then jumped that shark to “come out” in favor of gay marriage in blatant contradiction of his previous posture (see here and here for how that’s working out for him) – and then he just jumped that shark on Friday to abrogate the Constitution in order to recklessly pander to Hispanics.

And what Obama did on Friday was directly related to the colossal turd he laid on Thursday.  Obama HAS to keep jumping the shark because this complete failure SOMEHOW has to keep the support of a base that would otherwise abandon him like a liberal mommy having her baby aborted.

Consider what Obama himself said in the exact context of what he proceeded to do on Friday:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And:

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns and I understand them,” he said Monday. “We work every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane possible way.”

And:

America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job,” Obama said in March 2011 at a town hall event hosted by the Spanish-language television network Univision. [...]

Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws,” he said. [...]

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

Apparently, Obama has limited powers unless he a) gives a crappy speech and b) is losing an election.  Then there is no law, no Constitution, and no democracy.

Which all goes to say that what Obama did was a) un-American (“not the way our system works“); b) anti-democratic (“That’s not the way our democracy functions“); and c) unconstitutional (“That’s not how our Constitution is written“).

When I say Obama is a fascist – and I’ve said it before at length – I mean it as a highly accurate descriptive term rather than merely as a rhetorical ad hominem.  And Barack Obama is a fascist BY OBAMA’S OWN PREVIOUS ADMISSIONS ABOUT WHAT HIS ACT ON FRIDAY CONSTITUTED when he set aside the separation of powers and imposed by “Führer-fiat” what the Congress had explicitly refused.

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

We are watching the unravelling of America as Obama that if his presidency doesn’t succeed, America won’t succeed.

America is losing steam on all economic fronts as we speak.  Europe is falling apart at the seams.  The Middle East is going to hell.  Scandal after scandal is erupting that directly involved the White House.  And Barack Obama is doing more fundraisers than the last five presidents COMBINED.

America doesn’t matter to this Turd-in-Chief.  He’s willing to sell out American foreign policy to the Russians as long as they’ll help him win in November.  And given that we already can see right in front of our faces that Obama is a fascist dictator in his first term, there’s no telling what will happen if he gets a second term and is answerable to nobody and to nothing.

There is absolutely no question that the constant stream of top secret leaks are coming directly out of the White House and that vital secrets are being revealed as a means to create propaganda depicting Obama as a “tough” leader.  General Jack Keane said that the only times that America had ever suffered this much damage to its security was when traitors were selling secrets to our adversaries.  We are literally talking about treason.  

It is VERY possible and even probable that Obama as president declassified vital secrets such as the existence of SEAL Team 6, such as the details of the bin Laden raid and precisely what America found in the compound, such as the top secret operation known as Olympic Games and the computer virus known as Stuxnet, such as the drone missions, such as his use of a “kill list.”  Why would he do something that depraved?  Why, in order to sell long-term American security in exchange for short-term votes, that’s why.  Even Diane Feinstein has publicly stated that no nation will trust America for years to come as a result of these leaks, and it is a fact that intelligence operatives who have cooperated with America have been captured and killed or imprisoned, with far more of that to come.  If Obama declassified these and other secrets that have been leaked in an avalanche unlike anything the American intelligence community has ever seen, Obama will have legalized treason.  As commander-in-chief, a president has the right to declassify secrets.  But no president in American history until Obama will have so despised America that he would see this nation burn if he doesn’t win his election.

Even the very left-leaning Daily Beast is outraged at our Traitor-in-Chief:

Last week, the Times ran two sensational front-page articles, one detailing the president’s personally administered list of terror suspects targeted for assassination—the so-called “kill list,”—the other a book excerpt about the origins of the cyberwarfare program, codenamed Olympic Games, out of which came the Stuxnet virus. Both pieces were widely seen as boosting the president’s credibility on national security just as the 2012 presidential race kicked into high gear. Both pieces cite anonymous current and former high-level officials in the administration. The White House has denied that the leaks were authorized, calling the suggestion “grossly irresponsible.” [...]

This is the nugget of the problem. If information is too dangerous to be public, it’s supposed to be classified. If it isn’t, then it isn’t—full stop. Information isn’t classified—at least it isn’t supposed to be—for political gain or to cover up wrongdoing, or so high-level government officials can unilaterally dole out secrets to their favorite reporters at elite media organizations, or so well-connected politicians can manage the news cycle, undermine enemies, or win allies.

Officially, there is no middle ground. Sadly, leaks out of the Obama administration are beginning to look like official policy. Days before the Stuxnet and kill-list stories in the Times, columnist Glen Greenwald highlighted administration leaks to Hollywood filmmakers for an upcoming production about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. This, amid the harshest crackdown on unauthorized leaks by any president ever—the Obama administration’s docket of six leak prosecutions under the Espionage Act dwarfs any previous administration’s persecution of loose-lipped officials.

One thing is obvious: Obama only goes after leakers who don’t politically benefit him.

Obama has a long history of personally demonizing people while doing the exact same thing that he demonized them for.  Think of Gitmo, when Obama demonized George Bush – only to keep Gitmo open himself in direct repudiation of his entire presidency by his very own rhetoric.  The same goes for the Patriot Act, for rendition, for military commissions, for domestic eavesdropping and for a long list of other issues.  The liberal New York Times literally accused Bush of “shredding the Constitution.”  Who is shredding it now by the very rhetoric of the left???  In the same way, it is none other than Barack Obama who has violated civil liberties in a manner that goes so far beyond anything that Bush ever did it is almost funny.  The very few liberals who are not abject moral hypocrites (eg., here and here) have pointed this fact out, but the vast majority of liberals who rabidly demonized Bush with froth drooling out of their mouths are nowhere to be seen now that the fascist in the Oval Office is the man they put in there.

Think of Obama’s demonization of Republicans being in the pockets of lobbyists and his lying promises that he would put an end to it.  In fact it’s worse under Obama than it has EVER been, and that according to the liberal Washington Post.  Obama demonized George Bush over the national debt and lied to the American people that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Instead the disgrace has given us more debt than all the previous presidents in history COMBINEDObama demonized Bush as irresponsible and even unpatriotic for his debt; now Obama’s debt dwarfs Bush’s.  Obama demonized George Bush as a failed leader for needing to raise the debt ceiling and voting against that debt ceiling himself; now Obama has THREE TIMES raised the debt ceiling to levels never seen in the history of the human race and demonizing Republicans who didn’t want to vote for it.

All again pointing out the fact that Obama leaking secrets that politically benefit him while at the same time attacking anybody who leaks secrets that doesn’t politically benefit him is par for the course.  Which reminds me of the fact that this man who is supposed to be working so hard to get America back on track recently completely his 100th round of golf – equivalent to taking four months off his job.

Barack Obama is a cynical liar and hypocrite without shame, without honor and without decency.  And that is simply a fact of history.  And so are his followers who will vote for him no matter what he does no matter how offended they were when the other side did a small fraction of what Obama has done.

That’s actually a big part of the reason Obama is pushing all of these leaks as a means of “boosting the president’s credibility on national security.”  He KNOWS that liberals are abject moral hypocrites who will vote for him even if he is murdering American citizens without any kind of trial with predator drones and even if he is personally selecting which terrorists live and which ones die with his political adviser David Axelrod sitting with him.  Obama knows that the left will vote for him no matter what he does because he knows that they are as much fascist hypocrites as he is.  It’s the independents he wants – and these people WANT the president to be like Bush and be tough on terrorist murderers.

And if Obama has to betray America to sell himself to these independents, what is that to him???  Obama is a man who never saw himself as an American to begin with.

Barack Obama is THE most evil man who has ever contaminated the White House.  I saw that in what might even be called a vision the moment I first saw those Jeremiah Wright tapes and realized that Obama had sat for twenty-plus years under the “spiritual leader” and “mentor” Jeremiah Wright and remained for sermon after sermon of this anti-American and racist Marxist.  In my very first political article ever, I betrayed both my naivety and understanding all at once.  I predicted that Democrats would rightly reject Barack Obama in favor of Hillary Clinton due to the Jeremiah Wright revelations; I was wrong because I simply failed to understand how truly depraved Democrats and the Democrat Party had become.  But I also rightly perceived the evil of Obama.  My last words in that very first article of mine were:

If Senator Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations aren’t done for now, they should be. If he wins the nomination, I have every confidence that he will be destroyed in the general election when the Wright issue comes back with a vengeance. Until this week, I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a far more beatable candidate than Senator Barack Obama. I was wrong.

Barack Obama is far more wrong for sitting under the teaching of such a hateful man for so many years. In doing so, the most liberal Senator in the nation underscores just how extreme his views actually are, and just how dangerous a Barack Obama presidency would be for this country.

Republicans would have had to nominate David Duke for president to even BEGIN to come close to what Democrats did in nominating Barack Obama.  And this nation was asking for it and has dearly paid for it ever since that evil day on June 3, 2008 when he received enough delegates to win the Democrat nomination prior to the economic crash. 

This is God damned America until Obama is thrown out of office.  Now that we’ve seen this failure in action for four years, America has no excuse.  The soul of this nation is at stake in November, and America needs God far, far more than God needs America.

Make Him Wear His Own Words: Video Of Barack Obama Demonizing George Bush Over $3.50 Gas

March 14, 2012

I’ve written a few articles on gas prices (here’s one example).  And in every one, liberals have swarmed like cockroaches and said, “How DARE you hold the president responsible for the price of gas?”

I dare because Barack Obama dared before me.  And, yeah, I’m a guy who says, “Do unto Obama as liberals did unto Bush.”

Obama in his own demagogue words:

“Since the gas lines of the 70′s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing has changed except Exxon is making $40 billion dollars a year and we’re paying three fifty for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyist and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits; will invest in alternative energy; will create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it is time Washington worked for you not them.” – Sen. Barack Obama 2008

If you’ve got any decency in you (yes, I know that qualifier excuses you, Democrats), you will hold this lying demagogue responsible for his own lying demagoguery and vote this turd out of office this November 6.

Barack Obama has given $100 billion to his crony capitalist fascist buddies in the green energy boondoggle industry.  And a whopping load of it has been pissed away to corrupt companies like Solyndra who gave a little to Obama and got a LOT back.

Obama Demands $1.2 Trillion Debt Ceiling Extension – Making Him Responsible For $6.2 Trillion In Just Three Years

January 13, 2012

This is basically a reprint of an article I wrote a couple of weeks ago (available here).  But given that Obama floated the idea that he would ask for this third trillion-plus dollar debt ceiling extension (Obama is now responsible for the three highest debt extensions in the history of the entire human race), then decided to hold off his request, then decided to make it again, it seems like the thing to do to blast him as a spend-insane fool all over again.

Here are Obama’s own demagogic and frankly demonic words about George Bush:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

And:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

America certainly deserves better than Barack Obama.  And I read these demonizing words from this demagogue who has never ONCE accepted personal responsibility for the spectacular failure of his policies and just laugh with contempt at the way he pontificated about how “leadership means ‘the buck stops here.'”

Obama is now responsible for $6.2 trillion in debt in less than one term; versus George Bush whom Obama demonized for being responsible for $4 trillion over EIGHT FULL YEARS.

Why doesn’t Obama resign? Because in his own words “Americans deserve better” than him.

$30,000 for every man, woman and child? Boy, that would seem really bad. Unless the worst president in the history of the human race didn’t come along and make it over $50,000 for every man, woman and child.

Under Obama, the debt is nearly $15.2 trillion. But that aint nothing: because Barry Hussein is demanding yet another debt ceiling hike for yet another $1.2 trillion:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government’s debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday.

[...]

The debt limit currently stands at $15.194 trillion and would increase to $16.394 trillion with the request.

Hmm. $9 trillion…. $16 trillion. Which one is a more irresponsible, unpatriotic failure of leadership??? Gosh, I vote Democrat so I’m just too…. insane … and stupid… to know…

Feeling…. weak… Must… blame… Bush…

And there: now we Democrats – having healed ourselves – feel much better now. Because that “blame Bush” pill cures everything. Except reality. But why should we care about a silly thing like that?

If there was so much as a shred of honesty or decency in Barack Obama, in the Democrat Party, or in anyone who votes for the Democrat Party, they would do the only honorable thing and just go away and leave decent Americans alone.

I hear North Korea is real nice. And it’s a “People’s republic,” too. With a brand spanking new dear leader messiah. You libs will like it just fine.

There’s just nothing like the economic “success” of leftism.

Someone commenting on the latest debt ceiling hike (which now makes Obama responsible for the THREE highest debt celing hikes in the history of the entire human race) asked a question. And then he answered it:

“Where does this end? When does this stop? I guess when there is no more money to take from us and then the riots start.”

Looking at the vile crap that went on in Wisconsin and then the even MORE vile crap that took place all over the country in the Occupy riots, it looks like we’re already there…

Another made an even sadder observation:

Greece. Italy. Spain. America. Pathetic.

We voted to collapse when we voted for Obama; and we are getting EXACTLY what we voted for.

As of January 13, 2012, Democrats will demonstrate that they are the Party of genuine depravity and utterly reckless stupidity in America - having gone 988 days without bothering to pass ANY budget WHATSOEVER.  They are the reckless party of genuine evil in America.  And they will destroy America unless the American people rise up and stop them.

Worst Hypocrite Who Ever Lived To Ask For Yet ANOTHER Trillion-Plus Dollar Debt Ceiling Hike

December 28, 2011

Obama then:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Obama then:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

And then there’s the Obama of now.  There’s the president who demonized his predecessor in a vicious and hateful way who has since demanded the three highest debt ceiling increases in the history of the entire human race.

Obama is demanding yet another debt ceiling hike – this one to the tune of $1.2 trillion.  Because he is determined to spend until our children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children are still paying off his debts.  Because that is liberalism in a nutshell: destroy America and destroy any chance of a future America ever coming back.

Democrats seem to think that if America even has so much as a thousand-to-one longshot chance of having a future, they haven’t done their job.

It’s as if in the Democrat Party the Soviet Union stabbed us in the heart from the grave.  The Communist Party USA sings Obama’s praises as “one of us!” while the former U.S.S.R. mouthpiece Pravda openly mocks Obama’s America as having a fervent desire to commit national suicide.

The true “Da, Comrade!” Party of socialism in America is the Democrat Party.  And that is simply a documented fact.

And, of course, if Republicans try to do the right thing and stand up against the most completely-out-of-control government in human history, they will be demonized into submission by the Democrat-media complex.  You don’t dare do the right thing in God damn America anymore; the American people are too stupid and too evil and too bent on going the way of the Dodo bird.

Which is why the beast is coming.

Barack Obama The Greedy Crony Capitalist Fundraiser-In-Chief

December 7, 2011

For somebody who is so damned self-righteous and so quick to demonize his opponents, Barack Obama is a filfthy, shameless political whore.  Period:

December 1, 2011
Obama Outpacing Clinton, Bush on Fundraising Events
by Special Report Posted in: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, President Obama

President Obama is outpacing his predecessors quickly when it comes to fundraising events. According to CBS, the president’s total for the year is 69 fundraisers. Bill Clinton had 21 at this point in his third year in office, while George W. Bush had 41.

For the official record, Obama is selling influence 41% more than did George W. Bush.

It is beyond amazing that a guy like this is actually out there every day positioning himself as the one who stands above the political system when he has his pig snout deeper into the trough than ANY politician in history.

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

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

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

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.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Obama Rejected His OWN LAWYERS When He Waged His ‘Not-War’ With Libya And Ignored Congress

June 18, 2011

When Bush – during the tense crisis-aftermath of having just been horribly attacked by terrorists and having no idea if we’d be attacked again – asked his lawyers what he could do and what he could not do, HE LISTENED TO THEM.

Obama, the self-righteous hypocrite, denounced Bush for listening to the conclusions of his top laywers.  Obama and his legal puppet Eric Holder actually wanted to criminalize the men who did what they had to do during an incredibly dangerous time for our nation.  They actually sought to politicize the war and hold the previous administration criminally responsible basically for not being as foolish as the Obama Administration and it’s “man-caused disasters” instead of “terrorism” and it’s “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror.”

But now we Obama is greater than his lawyers, and certainly far greater than the Constitution, in his own diseased mind.

Obama rejects top lawyers’ views on war power in Libya
Key figures in administration’s legal team questioned continuation of air war without Congress’ OK
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnsen advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

This article, “Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya,” first appeared in The New York Times.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond outraged for Obama’s contempt for the truth and for basic reality:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

Democrats denounced the two wars Bush waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama is still in both countries, but in addition he is now bombing three others.  WE ARE NOW IN FIVE WARS UNDER OBAMA.

And now we learn that we is circumventing the normal proces and not even bothering to listen to his own top lawyers.

What we are finding out is that Democrats are the quintessential essence of hypocrisy, with way too few exceptions.  Where are all the damn liberal protestors shouting about all these outrages?  They crawled out from every rock when Bush was president.

Barack Obama should be impeached according to the standard of BARACK OBAMA:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

Unlike Barack Obama, George Bush NEVER ACTED IN SUCH A MANNER.

If Democrats had any honor or integrity whatsoever, this would not stand.  The problem is that they don’t.

We have a fascist for a president.

Update, 6/18: Headline: “NATO bombs Tripoli, sending Khadafy into rage.”  Strange, this.  It seems that Qaddafi is under the clearly completely false impression that Obama constantly bombing his country somehow qualifies as “hostilities” or mayhap even “war.”  I’m sure it’s all just a complete misunderstanding, one that the Teleprompter-in-Chief could lay to rest with one of his long speeches.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers