Posts Tagged ‘speech’

Hillary Clinton’s Hypcritical Bubble Dream World

October 22, 2013

Some of what Hillary said at a speech (I love the absolutely propagandistic way the reporter framed the story in the bold-faced heading, too):

She wasn’t afraid to jab Republicans, however gently

Clinton stayed mostly positive, but she didn’t shy away from taking a few shots at Republicans, albeit not by name.

Talking about the political gridlock on Capitol Hill that led to a 16-day government shutdown this month, she said that “we have seen examples of the wrong kind of leadership” in recent days, an unmistakable poke at House Republicans.

“Politicians choose scorched-earth over common ground,” she continued. “They operate in what I called the evidence-free-zone, with ideology trumping everything else,” she said, before listing the consequences of the shutdown, such as furloughed workers and “children thrown out of Head Start.”

Clinton also made sure to highlight Republican efforts to enforce stricter abortion regulations in Virginia. McAuliffe, she said, would “stand up against attempts to restrict women’s health choices.”

Rounding out her speech, Clinton alluded to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French writer who described Americans as having “habits of the heart” when he traveled to the U.S. nearly 200 years ago.

But Clinton warned that such a spirit is under threat.

“We cannot let those who do not believe in America’s progress hijack this great experiment, and substitute for the habits of the heart suspicion, hatred, anger, anxiety. That’s not as a people who we are.”

That’s “gently”???  “The wrong kind of leadership,” “scorched earth over common ground,” “evidence-free zone, with ideology trumping everything else,” “children thrown out of Head Start,” “hatred, anger, anxiety.”  Yeah, that’s gentle.

Whoever wrote this story up thinks that the tea party (the people with no arrests who left every protest sight cleaner than they found it) were ugly and that the Occupy Movement with 7.765 criminal arrests for stuff including RAPE (and terrorism), and toxic protest sites were just wonderful.  Because we’ve got propagandists where objective JOURNALISTS ought to be.  But that’s another discussion, I suppose.

It’s also another discussion to see Hillary Stumping for a candidate after her husband Bill’s adventure in stumping for one of the most twisted men of the century.  Now, Bob Filner is a man who knew how to “stand up for women,” too.  As long as he was standing up to grope them.

Let’s focus on Hillary Clinton, the shrill, hateful woman who once blamed “a vast, right wing conspiracy” for forcing her husband to insert his penis into the mouth of one of his young interns.  But just remember while you’re damning the GOP for what Bill Clinton did with his penis that “It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”

Do you want to know what “the wrong kind of leadership” apparently DOES NOT look like?  It looks like saying 250 times that you can’t remember something that would convict you criminally if you COULD remember.  Kind of like this crap:

As part of that investigation, the prosecutors have been examining the legal work Mrs. Clinton did for Madison and related land deals, including a project known as Castle Grande. Officials of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have told the Little Rock grand jury in recent months that a document drafted by Mrs. Clinton in 1986 was used “to deceive regulators” about the financing of Castle Grande.

The officials had originally concluded that Mrs. Clinton did little work for Madison or Castle Grande. But they changed their view after seeing her billing records, which disappeared for several years before turning up in the White House residence in 1996. Mrs. Clinton has said she does not remember drafting the document or performing other work on Castle Grande.

“The right kind of leadership” is not being able to remember one damn thing about all the fraud and crime you committed, isn’t it, Hillary?

But it was the line about “the habits of the heart suspicion, hatred, anger, anxiety. That’s not as a people who we are” that made me snort up my corn flakes.

As for “anxiety,” I’d like to know how many American presidents literally tried to demonize their own stock market because they wanted the economy to tank so they could blame the other party for it the way Obama did:

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

I’ll bet you can’t even COUNT how many dozens of times Obama fearmongered the word “default” in describing the debt ceiling debate.  Which is weird given the fact that the United States takes in at least ten times in tax revenue what it would have had to pay out in interest to service the debt, and the ONLY possible way America could ever have “defaulted” was if Obama refused to make the payments that the Constitution’s clause regarding “the full faith and credit of the United States” mandate that he make.

So, with no due respect, Hillary, “anxiety” is ALL ABOUT who as a people YOU ARE, you “vast right wing conspiracy” fascist.

Hillary Talked about “anger.”  I wonder how many American presidents have ever said -

We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us

- regarding roughly half of his own fellow AMERICAN PEOPLE????

You want to talk about “anger”???

Let’s take a LOOK at the face of “anger.”

Here’s “anger.”

Here’s some “anger” for you.

And here’s some more anger.

I’m kind of like that little kid in the movie who saw dead people, only I see “angry” people.

Yeah, I see “anger,” all right.

I see an incredibly angry man.

I see a man who seriously needs to blow off some of his anger and hate the way a train blows off steam.

A whole lotta anger on that man, judging by the pictures.

That’s EXACTLY the kind of people you are, Hillary.

As to “hate,” the WORST kind of hate is when you lie about your opponents and twist them the way your party’s own twisted soul is twisted.

Hillary Clinton, the vile, slandering, dishonest, demagogic liar that she is, talked about “children thrown out of Head Start.”

WHO THREW THOSE CHILDREN OUT OF HEAD START, HILLARY, YOU WICKED LIAR?

Headline:

House Passes Bill to Fund Head Start

As in “GOP House,” Hillary, you liar.

Here’s the opening line of another article for you to correct your slanderous hate, Hillary:

When CBS reporter Mark Knoller asked President Barack Obama why he refused to “go along” with any of the House bills to fund programs like Head Start or veterans benefits during the government shutdown, the commander-in-chief was blunt in his response.

Let’s consider which party really hates children, Hillary, you wicked, demon-possessed liar without shame, honor or integrity:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn’t try to help “one child who has cancer” by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: “Why would we want to do that?”

Do you want to know what “hatred” looks like?  It looks just like using the Internal Revenue Service as an ideological weapon to attack your political opponents.  Kind of like “punishing your enemies,” you know.  That ought to be pretty obvious given the fact that just two days after Obama met with his own IRS appointee William Wilkins, Wilkins chanted the IRS mission from collecting taxes to punishing Obama’s enemies for “anti-Obama rhetoric.”

When we talk about “hate” or “anger” or “anxiety,” just remember: WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS WHO SHAMELESSLY ADD “HYPOCRITE” TO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY DO.

One of the things Alexis de Tocqueville said was, “America is great because she is good.  If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”  And America has very definitely ceased to be good under Democrats and their baby-murdering, sodomy-worshiping ways.  de Tocqueville also said, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” But Democrats have virtually murdered the spirit of God or religion in America.

When I consider the actions of Hillary Rodham Clinton before, during and after the debacle of Benghazi where Hillary Clinton’s incompetent bungling basically murdered the first American ambassador since Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency before blaming it on some stupid video that had nothing to do with anything, I realize that as unbelievable as it may seem, there actually IS a president who could be more wicked and more incompetent and more demon-possessed than the one we’ve got now.

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.

Michelle Obama’s Speech: Red And Yellow Black And White, All Are Precious In Jesus-Obama’s Sight. Barry Loves The Little Tea Partiers Of The World.

September 5, 2012

Michelle Obama gave a nice speech, I’m sure (I preferred to gag myself with a giant spoon to watching it, but that’s another story).

I have to admit that as I was really choking on that damn spoon, there was a point when it actually occurred to me that maybe listening to Michelle’s speech might be more fun.

Having heard some of her top lines, I now know that I made the right choice gagging on that damn spoon.

Damn did that woman invent her own crazy reality:

“I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as “us” and “them” – he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above…he knows that we all love our country…and he’s always ready to listen to good ideas…he’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.”

I mean, holy crap.  Barry Hussein loves us all the same?  Seriously???

When Rush Limbaugh stated that hard core liberal activist Sandra Fluke was a “slut” for saying that she used so much damned birth control that she was spending $3,000 on it when for ordinary people it cost $9 a month, Barack Obama called her to say how sorry he was for such harsh dialogue.  Just as he called Sarah Palin every time Bill Maher called Her a “cunt” or a “dumb twat” or every time David Letterman said Sarah Palin’s 14-year old daughter was a little slut, right?  I mean, right?

Oops.  Barry doesn’t love Sarah Palin quite as much as he loves Sandra Fluke, after all.  As I pointed out at the damn time.

Wrong.  Not only did Obama not treat Sarah Palin like Sandra Fluke even though Palin was viciously assaulted a thousand times worse, but Obama happily took the million dollars that Bill Maher gave him in what amounts to an endorsement of what Maher said (most times when a slimebag gives a campaign contribution the candidate returns it or gives it to a charity).

Charles Krauthammer, brilliant psychologist as always, hit the reason Michelle Obama was so damn crazy right on the nutty head:

Her whole task was to say why. And her answer was,“Why? Because essentially he’s a saint.”

Because of his upbringing and because of his emotions and because of his humanity. He does of this because he cares. And the brilliance of it is this: It drained Obama of any, either, ideological motivation, or any having to do with self interest or ambition, which I think is sort of a more plausible explanation.

He’s a man highly who is liked and highly ideological. A man of the left who sees the role of the government as ordering, the reorderering, of society in a way to make it more just, as he understands it . And also, extremely ambitious. A self made man who makes himself out of nothing, rises out of nowhere. But all of that, in her telling, doesn’t even exist. The only reason he does what he does, he cares about women, he cares about immigrants, he cares about the poor. He cares about the unemployed. He cares, he cares, he cares.

She told the story of a Gandhi. And, you know, looking at the scene, looking at how he’s conducted himself in the presidency and particularly in the campaign, with ruthlessness and determination and drive, it’s not quite a plausible story. I’m sure in the arena, it was a plausible story. I saw the tears, but I’m afraid, I thought it was a great speech, but I didn’t buy a line of it.

Krauthammer was being too kind.  Michelle wasn’t implying that Obama was any mere saint.  The Obamas are far too grandiose in their narcissism to settle for such mendacity.  She was letting us know that Barack is our messiah, our Jesus.  And “black Jesus” – as Obama campaign manager David Axelrod calls him – loves us all the same.  Because he’s a messiah, he’s a god, and he’s just that much better than you are, you trifling mortal.

The president who used the incredibly vile term of “tea baggers” to describe the Tea Party, the president who is on the record saying that Republicans are despicable people who want dirtier air and dirtier water, as people who want more children born with Autism and Down Syndrome, the same president who once told Hispanics to racially rise up and punish their white Republican enemies, etc. etc. etc., is a black Jesus who is really saying of Republicans, “Forgive them, Great Barack in the Sky, for they know not what they do.”

The marketing of Obama as “Jesus” is as demonic as it is widespread from the left:

Artwork Likens Obama to Jesus
Sep 4, 2012
By Todd Starnes

Street vendors across downtown Charlotte are selling posters and artwork depicting President Obama as Jesus Christ and the Democratic National Convention is expected to feature a stained-glass window backdrop during their meeting.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE!

One poster features an image of the president in prayer with the headline, “Prophecy Fulfilled.”

“Barak is of Hebrew origin and its meaning is ‘flash of lightning,” the poster notes, referencing a passage in in the Old Testament book of Judges.

Hussein, they allege, is a Biblical word meaning “good and handsome.”

“So you see, Barak was destined to be a good and handsome man that would rise like a flash of lightning to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds,” the poster read.

The posters were being sold outside security zones at the Democratic National Convention. The posters are not sanctioned by the DNC.

An Obama calendar, obtained by Fox News, features two religious images of the Commander-in-Chief.

The month of August includes a photograph of Obama’s birth certificate with the words “Heaven sent.”

The president was born on Aug. 4th.

The entry also includes a photograph of Obama along with a passage of Scripture from the New Testament.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” the entry read — referencing John 3:16.

The month of November includes an image of individuals with their hands on Obama’s back — with the words “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.”

Fox News also obtained a photograph of a DNC stage design. It resembled a giant stained glass window. It’s unclear what the imagery will be used for.

The comparisons to Jesus Christ have brought strong condemnation from some evangelicals — including Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX.

“If Barack Obama is the promised Messiah, I think there are going to be many Christians who are profoundly disappointed,” Jeffress told Fox News. “One only has to look at Obama’s record to understand that he is absolutely, positively not the promised One.”

Todd Starnes is the author of “Dispatches From Bitter America.” The book is endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy!

But there’s that nasty truth that has Lady MacBeth I mean Michelle saying, “Out, damn spot!”

 ** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
 ** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
 ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
 ** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
 ** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
 ** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
 ** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
 ** Obama: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
 ** Obama: “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am.”
 ** Obama: “It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers”
 ** Obama: “We’re going to punish our enemies”
 ** Obama: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

Since there’s no “us and them” when it comes to Barack Obama, I am counting on Obama to look at his audience of Democrats tomorrow night and say, “You aren’t the kind of folks who represent our core American values.”  Because it sure seemed to be pretty damned “us” and “them” when Obama said that about Republicans.

Glad I chose to gag on that spoon.  Because lies make me a lot more nauseous than any stupid spoon could.

Transcript And Video Of Benjamin Netanyahu Proving The Case For Preemptive War Against Iran In AIPAC Speech

March 6, 2012

Link: http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/05/transcript-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-speech-at-aipac-2012/

Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel.

More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight.

I deeply appreciate your being here.

Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you,
the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government.

Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself.

And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

I’d like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently….Iran.

Every day, I open the papers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do.

Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent this from happening. He stated clearly that all options remain on the table, and that American policy is not containment.

Well, Israel has the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. Ad containment is definitely not an option.

The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal. A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.

Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right. A country that builds underground nuclear facilities, develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and absorbs crippling sanctions – is doing all that in order to advance…medical research. So you see, when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s only carrying medical isotopes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck –but this duck is a nuclear duck. And it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Yet incredibly, some are prepared to accept an idea only slightly less preposterous: That we should accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.

Sure, they say, Iran is cruel, but it’s not crazy. It’s detestable but it’s deterrable.

Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world’s most dangerous regime won’t use the world’s most dangerous weapons. And I promise you that as Prime Minister, I will never gamble with the security of Israel.

From the beginning, the Ayatollah regime has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays and stones women. It supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.

Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous.

There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. If you’re worried about the price of oil today, imagine how high oil prices will be when a nuclear-armed Iran starts blackmailing the world.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would set off a mad dash by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The world’s most volatile region would become a nuclear tinderbox waiting to go off.

And the worst nightmare of all, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism. It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city. Think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals who lead millions in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons!

The best outcome would be if Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran actually dismantled its program. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran.

I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before.

In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….”

And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote:

“Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.

My Friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here’s my point.

The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.

But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East. The only place where minorities enjoy full civil rights; The only place where Arabs enjoy full civil rights. The only place where Christians are free to practice their faith; The only place where real judges protect the rule of law; And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.

This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In Synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman – Esther.

In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself.

Thank you for your friendship, Thank you for your courage, Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state.

Obama Demands That America Stay On His Completely Failed Course In His So-Called ‘Jobs’ Speech

September 7, 2011

Obama is previewing his “jobs speech” which he’ll be giving on Thursday, and it’s basically deja vu all over again.

Obama said Monday:

“On Thursday, we’re going to lay out a new way forward on jobs to grow the economy and put more Americans back to work right now. I don’t want to give everything away right here, because I want you all to tune in on Thursday, but I’ll give you just a little bit.”

We’ve got roads and bridges across this country that need rebuilding. We’ve got private companies with the equipment and the manpower to do the building. We’ve got more than 1 million unemployed construction workers ready to get dirty right now. There is work to be done and there are workers ready to do it. Labor is on board. Business is on board. We just need Congress to get on board. Let’s put America back to work.”

Let’s see: Obama’s $862 billion – actually $3.27 TRILLION – pork-laden boondoggle wasn’t big enough the first time.  The stimulus totally failed.  But if at first you fail, why then fail, fail again.  And why not spend America into its grave failing while you’re at it?

“Ready to get dirty right now.”  What does that remind me of?

Oh, that’s right.  Watch this video to find out:

“Ready to get dirty right now” is just another damn way of saying “shovel-ready projects.” 

What was it Obama said?  You know, after selling the first massive stimulus as being one huge “shovel-ready jobs” package???

“Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

But what the hell.   Let’s waste another few billion tons of money.  Let’s make sure we dig our way into a hole that will guarantee out complete economic collapse. 

Obama Urges Congress to ‘Get on Board’ With More Infrastructure Spending
Published September 05, 2011 | FoxNews.com

President Obama called for Congress to “get on board” with more infrastructure spending and a new round of middle-class tax cuts Monday, as he delivered a campaign-style speech that served as a warm-up to a vital jobs address later this week.
 
Interrupted repeatedly by chants of “four more years,” the president marked Labor Day in Detroit at a rally with the nation’s top labor leaders. He used the address to underscore his alliance with the labor movement — at a time when cracks are starting to show — and preview some of the proposals he’ll outline during a speech Thursday before a joint session of Congress.
 
Related Stories Fox News-Google Candidates’ Debate: Ask a Question Ford At Greater Risk of Strike After Avoiding Bailout Money Obama Not on Track to Meet 2009 Deficit Reduction Pledge, Budget Review Shows

Obama effectively dared Republicans to oppose what he described as the “new way forward” for America. He said the upcoming session would reveal whether there are “straight-shooters” in Congress and whether Republicans will put “country before party.”
 
“Show us what you got,” he said, in a message aimed at GOP lawmakers. “No more manufactured crises, no more games.”
 
The president said he didn’t want to spill all the details of his upcoming address, but highlighted a few portions. Foremost, the president called for new investment in roads and bridges.
 
“There is work to be done, and there are workers ready to do it,” Obama said.  “Labor is on board. Business is on board. We just need Congress to get on board. Let’s put America back to work.”
 
He also called for an extension of the payroll tax cut he won from Congress nearly a year ago, as well as the approval of several trade deals. He said the proposals should achieve bipartisan support. “Folks got to get together, but we’re not going to wait for ‘em,” Obama warned.
 
Republicans, though, are skeptical of the speech. They have urged Obama to avoid stimulus bill-style measures — such as increased infrastructure spending — and instead focus on cutting regulations and easing the tax burden.
 
The president’s appearance Monday follows last Friday’s dismal jobs report, which showed that employers added no jobs in August. The disappointing report sparked new fears of a second recession and injected fresh urgency into efforts by Obama to help get millions of unemployed people back into the labor market — and help improve his chances of getting re-elected.
 
The unemployment report gave Obama’s Republican critics, including those who want to challenge him in next year’s presidential election, fresh ammunition to pound him with.
 
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Monday dubbed Obama “president zero” in light of the jobs report. He said the president has spent too much time giving speeches and campaigning.
 
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the jobs report disappointing, unacceptable and “further proof that President Obama has failed.” Romney is scheduled to outline his own job-creation plan in a Tuesday speech in the battleground state of Nevada.
 
The president on Monday also stressed his commitment to the labor movement, saying their cause was at the “core” of why he ran for president. He touted his efforts pushing a financial industry regulatory bill and propping up the auto industry and millions of jobs by providing federal bailouts in 2009 for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC. The AFL-CIO rally was being held in a GM parking lot.
 
As Republicans at the state level chip away at collective-bargaining powers, Obama vowed to stand up for collective bargaining “as long as I’m in the White House.”

As for the last statement by Obama in the last paragraph above, that’s because the unions are “President Obama’s army” in his “war” on the Tea Party as he tries to “take the sons of bitches out.”

But Barack Obama will stand up for union thuggery and their thug tactics as long as he’s in the White House.

Obama’s basic posture on creating jobs has not changed one iota since the day he walked into the White House and began to socialize America.

Barack Obama spent more than TEN TIMES what FDR did during the entire Great Depression in just TWO YEARS, as NPR points out:

“[T]he average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama’s first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression.”

But the simple fact of the matter is that we’ve LONG had the proof now that the countries that did big stimulus programs have struggled FAR MORE than the countries that didn’t.  It is a strategy that even the now-tired-of-failed-socialism Europeans have denounced as “a way to hell.” As even Europe now sees what Obama can’t understand.

The Treasury Secretary of the U.K. recently mocked Obama’s socialist America, pointing out that:

“Those who spent the last year telling us to follow the American example with yet more fiscal stimulus need to answer this simple question: why has the US economy grown more slowly than the UK’s so far this year?”

Barack Obama refuses to understand what the International Monetary Fund has learned from experience:

The mistakes began as soon as the new administration entered office. Then, two of its main economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, estimated a multiplier effect from government spending of up to 1.55. That is, for every $1 the government spent, the economy would grow by as much as $1.55.

But a study by the International Monetary Fund debunks the idea. As noted by Stanford University economist John Taylor, the IMF study shows a multiplier of just 0.70 — that is, for every $1 the government spends, the economy sees just 70 cents in activity.

Obama continues to cling to the false and profoundly failed notion that sucking money out of the hands of job creators and redistributing it to slackers will somehow magically “multiply” the money.  And the simple DOCUMENTED FACT is that just the opposite happens.

Here’s the thing.  The Democrats and Barack Obama have established an unfalsifiable premise and maintain it with a fanatic religious fervor.  No matter how big the stimulus package is, if it fails – and it always WILL fail – it wasn’t big enough.  Barack Obama spent ten times more adjusted for inflation than FDR did throughout the Great Depression, and it wasn’t big enough.  So let’s double it and make it TWENTY times more.  FIFTY times more.  There is simply no point where these lunatics will ever admit that their Keynesian boondoggle is a failed theory.

Obama wants to do the exact same thing that already failed.  Please don’t be as STUPID as you were the last damn time.

It’s long past time that the American people realize that these damned demonic Democrats are DANGEROUS to America.

Obama As The Stupidest Genius President Ever

August 10, 2011

Well, at least he’s not arrogant, right?

The aircraft was large, modern and considered among the world’s safest. But that night it was flying straight into a huge thunderstorm. Turbulence was extreme, and airspeed indicators may not have been functioning properly. Worse, the pilots were incompetent. As the plane threatened to stall they panicked by pointing the nose up, losing speed when they ought to have done the opposite. It was all over in minutes.

Was this the fate of Flight 447, the Air France jet that plunged mysteriously into the Atlantic a couple of years ago? Could be. What I’m talking about here is the Obama presidency.

When it comes to piloting, Barack Obama seems to think he’s the political equivalent of Charles Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager and—in a “Fly Me to the Moon” sort of way—Nat King Cole rolled into one. “I think I’m a better speech writer than my speech writers,” he reportedly told an aide in 2008. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m . . . a better political director than my political director.”

On another occasion—at the 2004 Democratic convention—Mr. Obama explained to a Chicago Tribune reporter that “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game.”

Of course, it’s tempting to be immodest when your admirers are so immodest about you. How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever? Even when he’s criticized, his failures are usually chalked up to his supposed brilliance. Liberals say he’s too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are all part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

I don’t buy it. I just think the president isn’t very bright.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery “makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs.” Today’s White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president’s rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama’s big speeches that didn’t amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a “Triple-A country.” Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent. At the height of the financial panic of 1907, Teddy Roosevelt, who had done much to bring the panic about by inveighing against big business, at least had the good sense to stick to his bear hunt and let J.P. Morgan sort things out. Not so this president, who puts a new twist on an old put-down: Every time he opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of financial capital.

Then there’s his habit of never trimming his sails, much less tacking to the prevailing wind. When Bill Clinton got hammered on health care, he reverted to centrist course and passed welfare reform. When it looked like the Iraq war was going to be lost, George Bush fired Don Rumsfeld and ordered the surge.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, appears to consider himself immune from error. Perhaps this explains why he has now doubled down on Heckuva Job Geithner. It also explains his insulting and politically inept habit of suggesting—whether the issue is health care, or Arab-Israeli peace, or change we can believe in at some point in God’s good time—that the fault always lies in the failure of his audiences to listen attentively. It doesn’t. In politics, a failure of communication is always the fault of the communicator.

Much of the media has spent the past decade obsessing about the malapropisms of George W. Bush, the ignorance of Sarah Palin, and perhaps soon the stupidity of Rick Perry. Nothing is so typical of middling minds than to harp on the intellectual deficiencies of the slightly less smart and considerably more successful.

But it takes actual smarts to understand that glibness and self-belief are not sufficient proof of genuine intelligence. Stupid is as stupid does, said the great philosopher Forrest Gump. The presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does.

Oh, well. Never mind about that thing about him not being pretty much the world’s most self-exalted specimen in the history of the human race.

By some strange coincidence (or by some mystical alignment revealing the essence of Obama for the foolish fraud that he is), the same day the above article emerged the following Dilbert cartoon came out:

Note the stunning similarity in character: yes, the narcissist is a complete screw-up, but somehow he believes himself to be absolutely magnificent.

Have you ever encountered one of those punk kids who was just as certain that he was smarter than everybody else as he was that he was God’s gift to the entire universe?  Usually these arrogant little vermin end up in prison because they just keep going farther and farther and getting away with crap until they finally take that one giant step too far.  But occasionally they get elected president before the truth emerges about them.

When that happens, in the words of former chair of Obama’s council of economic advisers Christina Romer, we are all “pretty darned f—ked.”  At least, that is, until somebody finally does something to control the irritating little turd.

We Need A Leader. Unfortunately We’ve Got A Fool-in-Chief

August 9, 2011

I wrote up my own comments in an article I wrote yesterday titled “Obama On Downgrade, Market Plunge: The Buck Stops With (Anyone BUT) Me.”  But Judith Miller’s systematic take-down on Obama’s speech should be preserved.

In Debt Downgrade Aftermath, Obama Serves Up a Silly Speech
By Judith Miller
Published August 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

First, do no harm. That is a useful injunction for doctors, lawyers, and, it turns out, U.S. presidents.
 
But President Obama’s useless speech Monday about the basic soundness of the American economy managed to reinforce all the concerns Americans on the left and right have about his stewardship of the country.
 
The speech did at least temporary harm. As soon as he finished speaking, the already jittery financial markets plunged.
 
Americans didn’t want to hear that we’re fine people or that Warren Buffett thinks that we should have an impeccable credit rating.

They didn’t want him to repeat his basic talking points: the need to marshal the “political will” to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance benefits, or create an infrastructure bank.

They didn’t want to hear his perfectly reasonable desire to solve the debt crisis over time by cutting spending after the economy recovers and by raising more revenue from what the president now calls “tax reform” rather than new taxes.

Americans wanted to hear what President Obama was planning to do to create jobs and stop our economy from slipping over an economic abyss into a double-dip recession.

His calm, passionless, “voice of reason” message, without a single new proposal except his pledge to make specific proposals in the future and work with the Congressionally designated super-committee to address the deficit and debt crises – “leading from behind again” – actually panicked the markets. And no wonder.  Americans were looking for a leader, and what we got was the professor again.

One must sympathize with the president. Last week was his worst week ever in the job.

First, he turned 50, usually traumatic for most people, even politicians.

Then he became the first president to have a downgrading of America’s credit worthiness on his watch – an action taken by Standard & Poor’s, a company that made a two trillion dollar mistake in its own budget calculations and which gave the highest credit rating to Lehman Brothers on the verge of bankruptcy and to the mortgage-backed securities that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis. How do you spell “chutzpah” on Wall Street?

Then he presided over the deadliest day in Afghanistan– the loss of 30 Americans soldiers, most of them Navy Seal commandos, some from the same unit that killed Usama Bin Laden. (He lauded their courage and sacrifice in the only convincing part of his today’s speech – at the end of that speech, which he introduced with the world’s most awkward transition: “One More Thing.”)

Then markets plunged.

The president has now managed to deepen the alienation of the right – which I believe unfairly accuses him of being a free-wheeling tax and spender whose profligacy is responsible for the nation’s slow growth and falling credit worthiness.

Now, the left of his party, too, is in full rebellion. On Sunday, Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory, articulated the fury of liberal Democrats in a New York Times Sunday Review essay.

He excoriated Obama for failing to provide a “counternarrative” to that of the right and for engaging in “the politics of appeasement” with the Tea Party. The public, he wrote, was desperate for a Roosevelt who would name names and assign blame – to his predecessors. (Hasn’t Obama done a lot of that?) Instead, it got more rhetoric. Instead of indicting his predecessors’ economic policies that had eliminated eight million jobs, “in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency,” Westen wrote, “he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert.” The predictable result was a “half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy.”

How can one explain this lack of leadership? Westen offered several harsh theories. Perhaps Obama is, as conservatives have alleged, too inexperienced and hence, incompetent. Obama, he wrote, “had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state.” He had a “singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography.” Finally, before joining the Senate, he had voted “present” rather than “yea” or “nay” 130 times, “sometimes dodging difficult issues.”

But wait. Westen has an even harsher explanation, namely that America is being “held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election.”

Ouch. No wonder Mr. Obama looked so very shaken during a speech that was intended to boost the nation’s confidence.

Obama came on television when we needed a leader.  And of course all we got was a clueless clown.

“Here’s my plan.”  “Here’s what we need to do.”  You’re not going to get anything like that from THIS Disgrace.

Obama is THE POSTER BOY for the phrase “all talk, no action.”  All this man ever offers is another useless speech.

I’m still waiting for Obama to give his “My work here is done” speech:

But it appears he thinks he can still do more to destroy America.

Mainstream Media Show They’re The Propaganda Mouthpieces Of The Professional Left. Again.

May 6, 2011

This is a tale of two events, with said events being only three days apart.

Let us begin with Sunday’s coverage of Barack Obama’s address announcing Osama bin Laden had been killed:

How Photos from Obama’s Speech on Bin Laden’s Death Were Staged
By Ujala Sehgal on May 4, 2011 2:08 PM

There is a fascinating piece at Poynter that describes how since the Reagan era (and possibly before) it has been the standard operating procedure that during a live presidential address, like the one President Obama gave announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, still cameras are not allowed to photograph the actual event.

Photojournalists from Reuters and AP described how President Obama basically had to silently re-enact part of his speech for the still cameras after giving it.

Reuters White House photographer Jason Reed writes:

As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.

The reason still cameras are not allowed during live presidential addresses is because of the noise from the camera shutters and the placement of the teleprompter, not for any sinister conspiracy-type reasons like we were hoping. And it’s been going on a long time.

The problem, according to Poynter, is that while many newspapers disclose that the photo they use is a re-enactment, some do not. And publishing these photos goes against the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics, which includes this relevant passage: “Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.”

We had no idea there was an ethics code for photojournalists, and we’re thrilled to find out there is one. How dare the White House force them to abandon it! We feel shocked and lied to! This practice of re-staging must come to an end.

So to whatever extent that there is an “ethics code” for journalists, they were only to happy to waive it for their liberal messiah-in-chief.

But let’s see how willing they were to waive the exact same “ethics code” only three days later, for Wednesday’s first Republican debate in South Carolina:

AP, Reuters to sit out South Carolina GOP debate
by Jim Romenesko
Published May 5, 2011 8:07 am
Updated May 5, 2011 8:11 am

Politico.com
The Associated Press cites “restrictions placed on media access.” Debate sponsors Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party will only allow photos to be taken in the moments ahead of the debate tonight and not during the event itself, says the news service. “This is about whether visual journalists will be treated with the same respect that text journalists are treated,” says AP senior managing editor Michael Oreskes.

Keach Hagey writes:

Reuters confirmed that it would not be covering the event photographically, because it shared concerns about access. However, Reuters did not confirm whether it would be going as far as AP and not filing text either.

Nope.  The self-righteous high-horses were out and promenading across the dance floor when the mainstream media got a chance to denounce the same conditions that they gladly overlooked for their messianic hero Obama.

The same exact issue was at stake: Fox News, the host of the debate, said there would be no still camera photography allowed during the debates.  And the same people who rushed to overlook their “ethics” the one time determined to rigidly adhere to them only three days later.  And, I suppose, it was nothing more than a complete coincidence that they were so willing to overlook their “ethics” for a liberal president and so determined to rigidly adhere to them for Republicans who want said liberal president’s job just three days later.

Just remember that most of the people who “report” the news are hypocrites and liars who are far more interested in distorting the news than they are in reporting it.

The Pathological Stupidity Of Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Meme Of Taxing The Rich

April 13, 2011

We need to balance our insane budget deficit, Democrats say.  And it’s time the rich paid their fair share.

All the top 10% of earners paid is 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.  That’s nothing.  It’s those poor poor who suffer the most.  The bottom 50% have to pay a whole bunch of nothing.  It’s just brutal for them every April.  They want to write a check to the government, but only the rich get to do stuff like that.  And the bottom 40% are so screwed by our federal income tax system that they actually are forced to accept free money in addition to paying a whole bunch of nothing.  Unless the Associated Press is lying about it.

Nothing makes me more annoyed than the phrase “give the rich tax cuts.”  Because it presumes that the government owns us and graciously allows us to keep some of what we earn.  The way liberals understand things, they own all the means of production.  They own my labor and whatever I earn from my labor.  And I am lucky if the commissars allow me to keep enough to feed myself.  It derives from a tenant of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  At the core is central planning; government stands above us, it stands above God (which is why consistent Marxists deny God exists and religion is merely an opiate of the masses), and government should redistribute everything according to its divine power.

That is the intrinsic logic of their view that allowing the rich or anyone else to keep more of their own money is considered a cost to the government.  But it ISN’T a cost to the government to allow me to keep more of my own money; anymore than it is a cost to me to allow my next door neighbor to keep more of his own tools.

Obama gave an address in which he paid lip service to reducing spending – even though his budget that he released only TWO MONTHS AGO didn’t reduce any spending at all – and in fact stated that it would be dangerous to do so.  Obama has no plans to cut spending; in fact, the deficit in just the first six months of this year shot up another 15.7%.  Obama is going to do what he’s been doing since he started running for president; he’s going to offer meaningless rhetorical platitudes about cutting spending and reducing costs, while demonizing the rich and demanding that the ONLY people who pay REALLY START TO PAY.

Obama is going to talk about “fairness.”

The ‘fairness’ meme
April 12, 2011 – 4:47 am – by Roger Kimball

We don’t know exactly what Barack Obama is going to say when he fires up his teleprompters at George Washington University tomorrow. The color, we do know, however: it’s red, as in “red ink,” what Mitch Daniels at his speech at CPAC earlier this year called “the new red menace.” (I like to think that the invocation of the old “red menace,” the Communist, socialist one, was deliberate: it is, I would argue, apt.)

The substance of the speech, as ABC notes, is “closely held.” Everybody thinks that there will be at least pro forma acknowledgement that spending on such programs as Medicare and Social Security needs to be reined in. But the big O will also return to one of his favorite themes, a by-word from his 2008 campaign: “increased taxes on the wealthy” (that’s according to “White House officials”).

Here’s my bet: the operative word in Obama’s speech tomorrow night, the mantra that will be repeated endlessly not only by O but also by the left-wing commentariat, is “fairness.” You remember his campaign shtick: the Saddleback Church event, for example, when Rick Warren asked candidates John McCain and B.O. about taxes. “Define rich,” he asked. McCain tossed out an income of $5 million, which elicited derision. But the gravamen of his response came in the elaboration: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”

How different was B.O.’s response: What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”

“Our fair share.” That, as I noted at the time, is B.O.’s refrain. “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” It’s a small step from the invocation of “our fair share” to Obama’s call for a tax on “the windfall profits of oil companies,” a tax increase on capitals gains, elimination of the tax on Social Security tax, etc., etc.

The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing revenue but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. William McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal back then, recalled Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that raising taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.”

McGurn observed:

[I]t doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama’s advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes — the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to the socialistically inclined.

It worked in 2008. Let’s see how it goes down tomorrow. Over the last two years, Barack Obama has presided over an economic Armageddon. Everyone knows about that $14 trillion that is the federal debt. Few people, I suspect, really appreciate what that unimaginable figure represents. And the kicker is, $14 trillion is only a tithe of the trouble. As Kevin Williamson and others have pointed out, the country’s real debt, when you facotr in state indebtedness and unfunded so-called “entitlement” liabilities, is closer to $130 trillion. That horror-movie figure is just too awful to contemplate, so I will draw a veil.

[...]

For the record, I wrote an article entitled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” in which I documented that every single time the United States has reduced the income tax rate, federal revenues have gone up.  I go back to Warren Harding to document that.  I include John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush – who increased federal revenues by lowering tax rates.

But this recurring documented fact of U.S. history is tantamount to rocket science to liberals.  Because they adhere to the entirely unrealistic premise that if I were to double your taxes, I would collect double the revenue, because people wouldn’t react to the tax increase by altering their behavior.

Recent developments give me a crystal clear example of why liberals couldn’t be more wrong:

Gas Price Rise, Americans Drive Less
By Rachel Smith
Posted: Apr 12, 2011 10:30 a.m.

Americans are taking rising gas prices seriously. They’re already driving less, “reversing what had been a steady increase in demand for fuel,” the Associated Press writes. “For five weeks in a row, they have bought less gas than they did a year ago.”

The average price of gas is an obvious indicator of why national fuel consumption is dropping. At the end of March, AAA reported that gas reached an average of $3.60 nationally. Today, AAA says the national average is $3.79 for regular grade, a 29 cent jump in about two weeks. Business Week reports that many analysts forecast that these numbers will worsen, and expect that consumers could pay as much as $5 a gallon this year due to political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, which supply much of the United States’ oil. The $5 per gallon speculation has been floating around the industry for some time, but last year, CNN stated that former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister predicted that Americans could pay $5 a gallon by 2012. Analysts have bumped that date up.

“Drivers are already reacting to the change,” writes Kicking Tires. “In the first week of April, consumption was down 3.6%, or 2.4 million gallons of gasoline,” based on data from MasterCard Spending Pulse.

One of the best ways to combat rising gas prices is to drive less, but there are other simple things you can do. [...]

Even uneducated, ignorant and frankly stupid people understand this incredibly basic concept: cost goes up, activity goes down.  And yet you have liberals with PhDs staffing agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office utterly fail to understand that if they make taxes go up, they will end up with reactions that will invariably produce less revenue for the government.

If even high-school dropouts understand that if the price of gasoline goes up, they need to drive less, how is it that brilliant businessmen won’t realize that if their tax rates go up, they need to protect their money?

Here’s another analogy that might be spot on the money.  Suppose your going to work and a mugger jumps you and takes all your money.  As he’s walking off, counting your (well, his now) cash, he says, “I hope you’ve got as much dough tomorrow, because I’m going to mug you again.”  Now, if you’re smart, you won’t be happening by that way at all the next day.  But if you’ve absolutely got to go that way to get to work, will you have as much money that next day?  Not if you’ve got a single functioning brain cell.  On my analogy, if you figure out some other way to get to work, that’s tax avoidance.  If you stash your cash somewhere so you don’t have it for the robber to take, that’s tax sheltering.  And if you’re too stupid to understand that this is what people do when their taxes go up, that’s liberalism.

The more taxes increase, the more activities that were previously not worth doing – such as sheltering assets, moving assets overseas, investing in collectibles, purchasing tax-exempt investment vehicles, or just dodging taxes – become worth doing.

And so,what happens every single time happens yet again.  Raise taxes expecting more revenue, get less revenue, and hurt the economy in the process by penalizing productivity and investment risk and thereby restricting growth.  And when you encourage growth by reducing the tax burden and allowing people to keep what they earn, lo and behold, cetaris parabis, there is a surge in activity, an increase in economic growth and a corresponding increase in federal tax revenue.

I say “cetaris parabis” because if you throw in a socialist Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that undermine something as vital as our housing mortgage market by imposing morally and fiscally insane policies until the system comes crashing down, such as what occurred leading up the crash in 2008, the best tax rates in the world can’t save the system.

Here are just a few articles I wrote on that subject, in order of date written with the earliest listed first:

Biden: ‘We Misread The Economy, And It’s All Republicans’ Fault

AEI Article: How Fannie And Freddie Blew Up The Economy

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

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

We need to have intelligent economic policies.  If we don’t have such policies, we’re going to struggle regardless of our tax rates.

Quickly, another liberal policy that will not even possibly work is the Federal Reserve QE2 (that’s the second shot at quantitative easing) that artificially reduces interest rates by artificially increasing the money supply in order to increase lending.

Here’s the problem with that.  Short term, it might seem to work.  The stock market looks at the apparent backstopping of our economy and follows the leader (Uncle Sam) up until the ship starts to sink.  After which they will sell, sell, sell.  But the ship ALWAYS sinks.  Why?  Because you have a lot more dollars chasing after the same supply of finite goods and services (if anything, in the last few years, we have a LOWER supply of finite goods and services).  So what happens?  More dollars chasing less stuff.  That’s inflation.  It will INVARIABLY require more devalued dollars to buy the same things.  The more you inflate the money supply, the worse that inflation gets.  And we have massively increased our money supply.

Let me go back to what I wrote going on a year ago now:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs.  And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation.  Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate.  Why?  Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued.  There’s simply no way it can’t be.  If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire.  The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems.  If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency.  And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins.  Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

And let me point out that we’re looking at huge inflation now – even as Obama declares victory over the recession – in insanely rising gas prices, food prices, clothes prices, all prices:

Hope ‘n Change Coming To Fruition: Cost Of EVERYTHING About To Go Up

Instability, Food Riots And A Heaping Dose Of ‘I Told You So’

Just like I said would happen.  And just like the long list of economists said would happen when they begged Obama not to do the $3.27 trillion stimulus.

This phenomenon is going on all over the world because most of the world is tied to the U.S. dollar – the currency that Obama has been poisoning hoping for short-term political gains.

And, again, a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts (which doesn’t help businesses and individuals who are desperately searching for consistency so they can predict their costs) is not going to help us out of this kind of moral and fiscal insanity.

But what we are going to see is Obama now demagoguing all the massive economic failure that his own policies are responsible for creating in the first place to demand that the rich “pay their fair share.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 520 other followers