Archive for September, 2011

Failed President Obama’s Hometown Newspaper Says He Should Step Down At End Of First Term

September 19, 2011

The story of the moment:

Chicago Editorial Writer Suggests Obama Step Down After First Term
Published September 19, 2011|

President Obama’s hometown newspaper has some startling advice for the commander-in-chief — quit while you’re behind.

Citing the president’s record-low approval ratings and unease in the Democratic base, a Chicago Tribune editorial writer recommended over the weekend that Obama need not feel obligated to run for a second term.

Steve Chapman said that with Obama facing the prospect of a double-dip recession and, if he wins reelection, a gridlocked second term, it might be better to call it a presidency and let someone else — maybe Hillary Clinton — carry the Democratic mantle in the 2012 election.

“I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election,” Chapman wrote in the Tribune. “He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013. That might be the sensible thing to do.”

Chapman said the high unemployment already makes it difficult for Obama to run. He noted that his recently unveiled jobs bill has not yet lit a brushfire of support, and that his party just lost two special elections in Congress.

“In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket,” Chapman wrote.

Though ex-Obama rival and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brushed off talk of presidential aspirations, Chapman said Clinton would be just the right fit.

“Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover,” he wrote. “Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president.”

Obama was the first Democratic candidate for president ever endorsed by The Chicago Tribune. Chapman was on the board at the time.

The words “caveat emptor” apply here.

Democrats not only seized dictatorial control of Congress – not only owning the House of Representatives (which they’d controlled since 2006) but also seizing a filibuster-proof Senate Majority (which they’d ALSO controlled since 2006) – and elected the most radical, leftist president in U.S. history.

And the ONLY possible thing that could go wrong was that the American people would see Democrats in action and reject them.

Things really weren’t going all that awful until Democrats took control of the House and the Senate.  Yes, George Bush had tried seventeen times to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which ultimately caused our financial crisis – only to be continually thwarted by Democrats who used these Government Sponsored Enterprises as a cash cow for liberal social policies.  Yes, John McCain was one of the Republicans who in 2005 and 2006 had BEGGED Democrats to pass reforms on Fannie and Freddie before a crisis imploded the American financial system.

But nope.  Democrats would have nothing of it.  Barney Frank, July 14, 2008:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.

For the factual record, our 2008 implosion officially began less than two months after Barney Frank said those words above on September 7, 2008 when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went bankrupt.  All the other players – Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc.  – found themselves holding toxic assets that they had purchased from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The massive mortgage backed securities which ONLY Fannie and Freddie could bundle had so many bad/bankrupt mortgages and it was so difficult to extricate the bad mortgages from the good ones that the entire securities packages were no longer assets, but liabilities.  Collapse after collapse followed.

Americans listened to the mainstream media – even though most Americans KNOW that the mainstream media is little more than the propaganda mouthpiece for the institutional left – and blamed George Bush entirely for the problems he tried to fix but couldn’t due to Democrat intransigence.

They elected a demagogue who promised messianic transformation of our society.  The man-made all kinds of impossible promises.   And the American people were stupid enough and depraved enough to believe those promises.

Frankly, I remember another moment in history as found in the words of jailed journalist Stephen Laurent – who went against the massive tide to oppose the Führer of that time:

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Obama DID fundamentally transform the United States of America, just as he promised he would do.  He imposed a “fundamental transformation” of our health care system with ObamaCare.  He imposed a “fundamental transformation” of our financial system with the Dodd/Frank Act.  Both of these monstrosities were well over 2,000 pages of power-grabbing legislation.  Both of these massive government takeovers have tens of thousands of additional pages that are literally still being written such that nobody knows what the law will truly look like by the time they are done.

When Obama couldn’t get his way with Congress – even the Democrat-controlled Congress prior to 2010 – he simply dictated his agenda by executive fiat.  He strangled businesses with EPA regulations that the Democrat Congress had rejected.  He decided that he was literally above the law: decreeing that he would not follow the Defense of Marriage Act that had been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  He decreed that he would abandon immigration law even after himself saying that doing so would be un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional.  And, yes, he rammed home an incredibly unpopular ObamaCare takeover of the health care system that is also flagrantly unconstitutional.  And the ONLY reason that it hasn’t already been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court is because Obama has used every procedural gimmick available to prevent it from going to that court for a decision which he knows will go against his power grabbing.

But finally, people are increasingly waking up to their sobering senses and finding out that they had been duped by lies.

But everything that’s happened has been Bush’s fault, we’ve been told over and over and over again.

And so now even Obama’s hometown newspaper is parroting a famous quote from the past given to an infamous failure and fool from the past:

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

In the name of God, GO, Obama.

And as long as the Obama regime continues to recklessly head this nation in the wrong direction, we are living in God damn America.


A Couple Of Hilarious (And Actually Informative) Videos Mocking Obama’s Fascist ‘Attack Watch.Com’ Site

September 17, 2011

First, there’s this one to set up what the site is and how it operates – in a mocking context, of course:

Then there’s this spoof of Obama’s fascist new propaganda sight (there may be a short ad before the video):

Please realize, this is hardly Obama’s first attempt at creating an enemies list.  The man is a malignant narcissisit, and it is beyond evident by now that the thickness of the man’s skin can’t even be measured in nonometers.

Here’s a screenshot of Obama’s old enemies list from 2009:

The “turn in your family and friends to Big Brother for the good of the State”  money line is near the bottom:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to

And what more can we say but Seig heil, mein Führer!

While we can and should mock Obama for this, we also need to realize that the man is every bit as fascist as he knows how to be in a once truly free society.  Democrats lust for government power and control; the only thing they lack to start putting people into re-education camps (or mental institutions) is the power to do so.

I have said this more than once.  If I am not on Obama’s enemies list, it only means I have to work harder.  If they come to take the Jews away, I hope I will have made enough public statements supporting and defending Israel that they take me with them.  If they take the Christians away, I sure hope there is enough evidence to convict me of being one.  If they take the conservatives away, let them come for me in the very first wave – before it gets harder to stand up for what you believe when the real oppression comes.

We’re in bad times in Obama’s God damn America, and we’re headed for far worse times.  It’s past time that you stood up and took a stand, with your mouth, with your money and with your actions.

For Democrats It’s 2010 Election Disaster Deja Vu All Over Again

September 16, 2011

Most of us (myself included) fixated on the NY-9 House seat held by Anthony Weiner (and Charles Schumer before him and Geraldine Ferraro before him) that had been in Democrat hands since 1923 as a portent to coming disaster for Democrats in 2012.

But many political analysts actually said the Nevada race won in a landslide by the Republican is an even more ominous portent.  Consider that John McCain won that district by just 88 votes in 2008;  three years later, it was won by a Republican by nearly 30,000 votes.  And that district is not Jewish.  And Ed Koch wasn’t influencing that race.  And the Democrat candidate in Nevada was by all accounts an excellent candidate who played the Democrat “blame Republicans” game to a “T.”

There is a growing list of reasons (and there’s also this one) that Democrats ought to be very, very afraid that 2012 is shaping up to be a “Reagan Whips Carter’s Ass” sort of year.

The writer of the following article clearly has a fondness for Democrats (the fact that he writes in the New York Times alone is a pretty good tip-off).  But he presents some analysis that leads to worry for Democrats:

September 14, 2011, 1:33 am
For Democrats, It’s 2010 All Over Again

The outcome of any individual election to the United States House, even in a highly partisan era where Congressional elections have a relatively strong correlation with presidential voting and national trends, is going to be determined based on a combination of local and national factors. One congressional district’s outcome may diverge significantly from another’s – even if they seem similar on the surface — based on the quality of the candidates, the demographics of the region and issues highly pertinent to the district but not to the nation at large. Any one race may or may not be representative.

There are good reasons to think that local issues may have loomed especially large in New York’s 9th Congressional District, where the Republican Bob Turner won on Tuesday. President Obama had significantly underperformed his Democratic predecessors in the district in 2008, and the large split in voting between the Brooklyn and Queens portions of the district — the Brooklyn parts are more heavily Jewish — implies that Israel-related issues may have played a role.

There were other local factors as well: influential endorsements for Mr. Turner by Democratic leaders like former Mayor Ed Koch and the Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and local rabbis; the close timing of the election with the Sept. 11 anniversary; the fact that the district had been vacated by a Democrat, Anthony Weiner, in a scandal; and perhaps gay marriage in a district that is economically liberal but fairly religious, with pockets of social conservatism.

Still, even if those issues played a role, even if they swung the result, the Democrat David Weprin would likely have performed better had the national environment been stronger for his party.

And when paired with the results in Nevada’s Second Congressional District, where the Democrat Kate Marshall was blown out on Tuesday, the special election scorecard is starting to look pretty ominous for Democrats.

One crude way to forecast the results you might expect to see out of a House race is through its Partisan Voting Index, or P.V.I., a measure of how the district voted relative to others in the past two presidential elections.

The Nevada Second, for instance, has a P.V.I. of Republican plus-5, meaning that the Republican candidate would be expected to perform 5 points better there than a Republican might nationally. Since a vote for the Republican is (usually) a vote against the Democrat, you need to double that number to project the margin of victory. In this case, that would imply a Republican win by 10 points given average candidates and a neutral overall political environment.

The Republican Mark Amodei, however, leads by 22 points as of this writing, an easy victory, meaning that he overperformed the P.V.I. by 12 points.

Meanwhile, Mr. Turner’s winning margin in the New York district, 8 percentage points as of this writing, represents a 18-point G.O.P. swing from the P.V.I.-projected results.

These numbers contrast with a May special election in New York’s upstate 26th Congressional District, a Republican-leaning seat where the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won. Her 5-point victory margin represented a 17-point Democratic swing from what would be expected from the district under average circumstances.

Ms. Hochul’s victory should not be forgotten about, as it’s a sign of how volatile the results in individual elections can be, and how rapidly the political climate can shift. That election was held at a time when Mr. Obama’s standing was relatively strong in national polls, following the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

Even if you include it, however — as well as a July special election in California, where Democrats won but by an underwhelming margin — Republicans have overperformed the P.V.I. baseline by an average of 7 percentage points across the four races. That squares with what we saw in 2010, when Republicans won the popular vote for the House by an aggregate of 7 percentage points.

In other words, the four special elections, taken as a whole, suggest that Democrats may still be locked in a 2010-type political environment. Democrats might not lose many more seats in the House if that were the case, since most of their vulnerable targets have already been picked off, but it would limit their potential for any gains. And it could produce dire results for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where they have twice as many seats up for re-election.

It’s certainly possible to read too much into special elections to the House. Over the long run, they have had a statistically significant correlation to the outcome of the next general election. But the relationship is weak and frequently runs in the wrong direction, as it did in 2010.

Moreover, special elections aren’t a good barometer of the degree of anti-incumbent sentiment, since by definition they don’t feature incumbents on the ballot.

So these are just four waves in an ocean of data. Among other signs, the outcome in the recall elections in Wisconsin last month — where Democrats failed to flip the state senate, but picked off two Republican incumbents in six attempts — are a bit more favorable for Democrats. So are the results of generic ballot polls, which show a roughly tied race for the U.S. House. There are also a broad variety of indicators showing extreme dissatisfaction with the Congress, which could harm Democrats in the Senate but help them in the House.

Nevertheless, these are waves that portend trouble.

At the very minimum, they imply a reduction in the odds that after three consecutive “wave” elections, 2012 will show a tidal shift back toward Democrats.

 The Democrat combination of swinging wildly between liberal teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing and simultaneously denying that it has anything to do with Obama is very interesting to watch.  It’s rather like watching someone with a serious bi-polar disorder going from hyper-positive to delusional and back.

Meanwhile, Obama’s “hope and change” means no jobs, record mortgage foreclosures, dismal consumer confidence and spending and pretty much zero positive momentum.  And that’s the good news.

Yet Another Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Mandate Unconstitutional

September 15, 2011

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama – a “constitutional scholar,” we were told – gives one slimy cockroach crap about the U.S. Constitution.  Recently, before deciding that his government would not follow (i.e. that the Obama regime would BREAK) federal immigration law and refuse to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who had had their day in court and LOST, Obama told a Hispanic group the following in explaining why he couldn’t do what they wanted:

“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 then a few weeks later Obama did the very thing he himself had categorically stated was both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

He also previously similarly ignored federal law – law passed by both branches of Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton – and decreed that his government would ignore the Defense of Marriage Act.  He has now held that the power of law resides within the power of the Führer alone.  The law doesn’t matter if Obama doesn’t like it.  He alone as our Messiah stands transcendantly above the law and the rule of law.

So it doesn’t surprise me whatsoever that he rammed a despicable undemocratic and unconstitutional takeover of the health care system.  He has PROVEN that he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution or the rule of law.

Pa. fed judge knocks down key Obamacare health care requirement
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The requirement in the national health-care overhaul law that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday in a question that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to settle.

The suit decided by Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg is one of more than 30 lawsuits nationwide that have been filed over the 2010 law that is President Barack Obama’s signature initiative.

Conner, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, said the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The nation undoubtably faces a health care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant. The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’s efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”

But Conner rejected an argument by the plaintiffs — a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and Gregory Bachman — that the mandate is “disastrous to this nation’s future, such as the Bachmans’ prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results … are both unproductive and unpersuasive.”

While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.

Separate lawsuits have already reached appeals courts in Richmond, Va., Atlanta and Cincinnati, with one of those courts ruling against the mandate.

It’s time to return to the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who confronted such a socialist takeover attempt of medicine in his own day and said:

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

The polls overwhelmingly demonstrated that what was true in Reagan’s day is every bit as true today.  The American people never wanted this vile and un-American monstrosity.

It is unconstitutional.  It is an unconstitutional TAKEOVER meant to impose socialism.  Obama knows it; that’s why he will NOT let this come before the Surpreme Court where it would be overturned.  Rather, he has done everything he could to delay that day of reckoning.

Which is paralyzing businesses who need to know their cost if they are going to take the risk of hiring workers.

Barack Obama has been granting waivers to the very leftwing unions and businesses who helped Obama impose ObamaCare so that they would not have to pay the way all the OTHER Americans will have to pay.

Impeach Obama from office before he damages this nation beyond the possibility of repair.  Because that point of no return is rushing toward us.

Strangling Newborn Baby Okay Because It’s Like An Abortion, Rules Canadian Judge (For The Record, Obama Agrees)

September 15, 2011

It’s a woman’s right to choose.  To murder her own child in a manner I wouldn’t do to a rat.  And if you decide to murder your own child after your own child has already been born, well, that’s okay too.  Because it’s basically just a retroactive abortion, isn’t it?

Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge
by Patrick B. Craine
Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:45 EST

Katrina Effert covers herself with a jacket as she leaves the Edmonton courthouse on Friday.

EDMONTON, Alberta, September 12, 2011 ( – An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.

She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.

On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, a woman who has not “fully recovered” from the effects of birth can be found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide. To bring forward the infanticide defense, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, there must be evidence that the woman’s mind was disturbed.

According to the Crown, the evidence showed Effert was not suffering mental disturbance. They highlighted the fact that she planned for the birth by getting scissors to cut the umbilical cord and towels, and then hiding in the bathroom in her parents’ basement. They suggested that she had tried to miscarry the child during pregnancy by smoking and drinking. She lied during initial police questioning, claiming she was a virgin.

But Justice Veit agreed with defense lawyer Peter Royal, saying that this was “a classic infanticide case — the killing of a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported.”

Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, “there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer’s views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world’s most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands’ practice of euthanizing newborns.

Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager?” asked Hughes.

“It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right – ‘the right to life’ and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. “The mother’s stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.”

Oh, and by the way; the president some of you voted for completely agrees with this Canadian judge (as vile as he is):

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Watch this five minute video:

I pointed out in one of the articles above:

I’ve provided analysis of Barack Obama’s hypocrisy and lies regarding his abortion stand. I’ve provided Jill Stanek’s documentation of ten different reasons Obama has given for refusing to support a bill that would stop babies from literally being left on a table to die. But a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video even more.

The fact is that Barack Obama’s 100% NARAL-approved abortion position is so bizarre, so vile, and so extreme that he opposed a human life bill whose identical version passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate, with Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy supporting.

In other words, even by the standard of the most ardent abortion-rights supporters, Barack Obama’s stand is vile.

Barack Obama’s voting record clearly reveals that he is a baby killer. That is a documented fact. And I frankly don’t give a damn how “thoughtful” or “nuanced” his dissembling, self-righteous lies are.

It’s a good sign for Obama.  Because when he’s driven out of office in abject disgrace for the ruin that he left America in, he’ll have a nice career as a Canadian judge.  If you have the soul of a cockroach, a seat on a judicial bench is a very possible and very attractive career move for you.

But one day Justice Joanne Veit, Barack Obama, and every single one of you who supports abortion will face a just and holy God who will demand vengeance for the murders of all of these tens of millions of innocent children.

Do you want to know why life in America sucks so much these days?  Because this is God damn America, that’s why.

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It

September 15, 2011

It’s interesting how the New York Times  reports this story, by pointing out the rate rather than the sheer number, to try to protect Obama.  But you can also look at it this way: poverty is at its highest NUMBER ever recorded; and it is at its HIGHEST RATE since the LAST time a Democrat was president.  Because, um, for the record, Bill Clinton was president in 1993.

Barack Obama and his liberal Keynesian policies have completely failed. 

U.S. Poverty Rate, at 15 Percent, Is the Highest Since 1993
Published: September 13, 2011

Another 2.6 million people slipped below the poverty line in 2010, meaning 46.2 million people now live in poverty in the United States, the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been tracking it, said Trudi Renwick, chief of the Poverty Statistic Branch at the Census Bureau.

That figure represented 15.1 percent of the population, up from 14.3 percent in 2009, and 11.7 percent at the beginning of the decade in 2001. The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,113.

And in new signs of economic distress among the middle class, median household incomes adjusted for inflation declined by 2.3 percent in 2010 from the previous year to $49,400. That was 7 percent less than the peak of $53,252 in 1999.

The report comes as President Obama gears up to pass a jobs bill, and analysts said the bleak numbers could help him make his case for urgency. But they could also be used against him by Republican opponents seeking to highlight economic shortcomings under his watch as the election season gets under way.

“This is one more piece of bad news on the economy,” said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. “This will be another cross to bear by the administration.”

The annual report by the Census Bureau offered a portrait of the American economy one year into the economic recovery. Its findings, which included figures for poverty, median income and the number of uninsured Americans, were bleaker than many economists expected and reinforced the worry that the economy has a long way to go before middle-class families feel any improvement.

“A full year into recovery, there were no signs of it affecting the well-being of a typical American family,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard. “By late 2010, the economy was sort of dead in the water, and that’s where it’s remained.”

Joblessness was the driving force pushing more Americans into poverty, economists said. Last year, about 86 million people of working age did not work even one week out of the year, Ms. Renwick said, up from 83 million in 2009, a trend of increasing long-term joblessness that economists say puts families at greater economic risk.

“Once you’ve been out of work for a long time, it’s a very difficult road to get back,” Mr. Katz said.

Median household income fell across all working-age categories, but was sharpest among the youngest Americans, ages 15 to 24, who experienced a decline of 9 percent.

According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. Particularly hard hit, he said, were those who do not have college degrees.

“That’s not about the poor and unemployed, that’s full time, year round,” Professor Danziger said. “The median, full-time male worker has made no progress on average.”

The recession continued to push Americans, particularly young people, to double up in households with friends and family.

The group of 25-to-34-year-olds experienced a 25 percent rise in living at home in the period between 2007, when the recession began, and 2011. Of that group, nearly half were living below the poverty line, when their parents’ incomes were excluded.

“We’re risking a new underclass,” said Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research and Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Young, less educated adults, mainly men, can’t support their children and form stable families because they are jobless.”

More Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty also swallowed more children, with about 22 percent of all children living below the poverty line, up from 20.7 percent in 2009.

“It was a surprisingly large increase in the overall poverty rate,” said Arloc Sherman, senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We see record numbers and percentages of Americans in deep poverty.”

But it’s NOT a surprisingly large increase.  Because Barack Obama is murdering America and killing its ability to compete and create jobs for its citizens.

It’s only “surprising” if you actually were stupid enough to believe that Obama’s Marxism would ever do anything other than what it’s clearly done: fail wildly.

This is EXACTLY what conservatives told anyone who would listen what would happen.  Read this story I wrote about the stupid and immoral minimum wage increase.  I cited other conservatives who PREDICTED abject disaster; and what did we get?  ABJECT DISASTER.  It wasn’t some bizarre unfortunate coincidence; it was the necessary outcome of a stupid policy which priced low-wage labor right out of the workplace.

WE TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN.  You Democrats are stupid and you are evil.  You cynically claim to help the poor, but you crush them, you grind them down, you turn them into an eternally-dependent underclass and then you continually fearmonger their welfare check in order to make them your slaves every election.  What you do is cynical, despicable and depraved.

These poor people look at you for help – because you made them ignorant with your government schools – and then you sell them snake oil by the barrel-full to keep them dependent on you.

You made the poor bad and corrupt people who vote for bad and corrupt people and bad and corrupt policies.

The U.S. economy is at its worst since – guess when – THE LAST TIME A DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST WAS RUNNING IT.

When Obama sold us the gigantic load of lies known as “the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” that amounted to $862 billion – and actually $3.27 TRILLION – worth of pork, he said that his massive boondoggle would create millions of jobs and get people out of poverty.  Obama talked endlessly about “shovel-ready jobs”; now he’s selling the same load of fertlizer and saying that there are a “million construction workers ready to get dirty.”  He lied to you then, and he’s lying to you again.  And if you are a truly stupid and vile human being, you’ll believe his lies. 

We need to have a massive purge of Democrats and liberalism and recognize once and for all that their way is the way to hell.  Before it is too late.

Jews May Vote Against Hitler Because ‘They Feel They Want To Protect Their Wealth’ (Oops, Did I Say Hitler? I Meant To Say Obama)

September 14, 2011

Democrats are racists from the party of racism.

People tend to forget that.  But Democrats fought a vicious war to protect slavery; and then they began the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party; and so on.

Well, here we are in late 2011, and the blatant Antisemitism of the Democrat liberal base is in full swing on the evening of a vert humiliating election disaster (well, make that yet another in a series of humiliating election disasters dating back to the first chance voters got to show Democrats just how much they suck when Republicans took Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat away in liberal Massachusetts):

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Waxman: Jews May Vote Against Obama Because ‘They Feel They Want to Protect Their Wealth’
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 7:55 AM
Republican Bob Turner is poised to win the special election in NY-9 today and loathsome Democrat Henry Waxman offers his unique spin why Jewish voters are fleeing Obama in droves.

“If Turner wins on Tuesday, it will be largely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the district,” wrote Tom Jensen of the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, one of the firms whose poll had Turner in the lead.

The PPP poll found that Democratic candidate David Weprin has a net positive approval rating, but the president’s job approval rating had slipped to 31 percent in the district, which he won with 55 percent in 2008.

“If Obama’s approval in the district was even 40 percent Weprin would almost definitely be headed to Congress,” Jensen wrote. “He’s getting dragged down by something bigger than himself.”

A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. “I’m warning my clients — ‘Don’t run in 2012.’ I don’t want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,” said the strategist.

National Democrats have parachuted in since the race tightened: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $500,000 on television ads in the highly expensive media market, while the Democratic outside group House Majority PAC has spent an additional $100,000.

The race might point to another trend: a softening in Obama support from the Jewish community, which strongly backed him in 2008. The district has one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the country.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish congressman, said the Jewish vote is a concern for his party.

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

What does that say about Obama? Basically, if you want to protect your wealth, be you Jewish or whatever, don’t vote for Obama.

Thanks for that ringing endorsement, Nostrilitus.

Faced with a six-point deficit in the polls (which local TV and radio call “razor thin” and “too close to call”), the desperate Democrats called in aging Lothario Bill Clinton for some robo-calls, where he repeated the typical Democrat lies.

“Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to ask you to support David Weprin in today’s special election for Congress. The New York Times endorsed David. They support him for the same reasons I do: because he’ll stand up for the middle class, he’ll support a good program to put Americans back to work, and he’ll oppose the Tea Party plan to destroy Medicare. Again, it’s President Bill Clinton, I’m proud to support David Weprin for Congress and I hope you will too. Thanks.”

They have nothing to offer but fear itself.

Black conservatives – and now Jews – can readily attest that sacred minorities can become instantly evil villains; all they have to do is vote against Democrats.

You’d better tow the damn Democrat line, minorities.  Because there is a racist and vicious Democrat Party just waiting to pour hate on you if you don’t vote the way they want you to.

Which, interestingly, was EXACTLY how the Democrats were acting in the Civil War days, too.

Look at how liberals “de-blackificated” Clarence Thomas:

What do liberals want to do with Clarence Thomas?  “String him up.”  “Send him back to the fields.”

David Horowitz once called blacks the “human shields of the Democrat Party.”

But it’s funny how quickly the white liberal establishment will throw one of its shields into the fire and burn it.

For the record, Jews haven’t “misunderstood” a damn thing.  Barack Obama – whose spiritual mentor and pastor for 23 years (Jeremiah Wright) was a hard-core anti-Semite himself has been more anti-Israel than any American president in the entire existence of Israel since its 1948 birth.

Thanks directly to Barack Hussein Obama, Israel is more exposed and is in greater danger than at any time since it was threatened with extermination in 1948.  To argue first that Jews aren’t smart enough to understand that an Antisemitic president has put their nation in direct jeopardy even as he has groveled before Israel’s most dangerous enemies, and then to argue secondly that somehow they are wrong for wanting to vote in their own clear economic interests, takes some incredibly amazing chutzpah.

Republican Bob Turner Wins Weiner’s Seat (Held By Democrats Since 1923) In MAJOR Obama Buttkicking

September 13, 2011

The überliberal Los Angeles Times said this about the Weiner seat race Saturday, September 10:

The district has not been represented by a Republican since 1923. But Weiner’s departure, coupled with voter discontent over President Obama’s handling of the economy, could change that Tuesday when the district votes in a special election to fill the seat.

“If Turner wins, it’s going to be perceived to be, and in some sense really will be, a referendum on Obama,” said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

As Obama struggles to gain footing on a wobbly economy, his party has begun a frantic effort to avoid the embarrassment of losing the seat.


“Democrats need to keep this seat just to save face,” Malone said. “Not only is the money flowing, but all of these elected [Democratic] officials, they’re all asking their staff members if they could take time out to go campaign for Weprin.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invested about $500,000 on a last-minute advertising campaign. House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, has spent at least $100,000 to run its own ad assailing Turner for his “tea party” ties.

That’s a lot of money in a race in which the candidates had raised $654,755 combined by late August.

Turner’s campaign got a small boost from the National Organization for Marriage. The group pledged to spend $75,000 to oppose Weprin, who in June voted for the bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New York.

National Republican Party groups had yet to spend significantly on the race, suggesting that the party might have less faith in Turner than his late boost in the polls might suggest. But even a close race — Turner won just 39% of the vote in his run against Weiner in 2010 — would be enough to embarrass Democrats.

“Even if Turner comes up short, it’s sort of a feather in the cap of the Republican Party,” Malone said.

Well, now Democrats aren’t just “embarassed.”  They’re crunched like the nasty little disease-carrying roaches they are.

Not only did Democrats lose the seat, but they lost it to a guy who “launched conservativer provacateur Rush Limbaugh’s talk show.”

Even with a 3-1 advantage in Democrat regirstration over Republican registration, it wasn’t really even close:

With about 70 percent of precincts reporting late Tuesday, Turner had 53 percent of the vote to Weprin’s 47 percent.

The also überliberal Washington Post wrote it up thus:

Republican Bob Turner wins New York special election
Posted by Rachel Weinerat 11:58 PM ET, 09/13/2011

Businessman Bob Turner (R) defeated state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) in the special election for the House seat held by former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D).

Turner’s victory is regarded as an upset given the Democratic history of the 9th district, which takes in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the fact that President Obama carried the seat by 11 points in 2008.

“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win.

Mary Altaffer


Republican Bob Turner won a New York seat that Democrats expected to hold.

Although the district may well be eliminated by Empire State line-drawers tasked with cutting down New York’s congressional delegation by two seat before 2012, the result will buoy Republicans hopes heading into 2012 and spur anxiety among Democrats.

Republicans also easily held a seat in Nevada’s GOP-heavy 2nd district, which has never elected a Democrat. State Sen. Mark Amodei (R) beat state Treasurer Kate Marshall (D) in a special election for the House seat left open by Sen. Dean Heller (R), who was appointed to replace Sen. John Ensign (R). Ensign resigned earlier this year over a scandal involving an aide.

The New York seat, which was vacated by Weiner earlier this year following relevations of his involvement in a series of online liaisons with women who weren’t his wife, was initially considered safe for Democrats.

While it’s conservative by New York City standards, Democrats still have a 3-to-1 registration advantage in the district.

Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President.

The National Jewish Democratic Council disputed the idea that Israel was a major factor.

“In the end, in this difficult economy, Americans — including in New York’s Ninth District — are hurting,” said National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris. “In this atypical district, they’ve reacted atypically.”

In the run-up to Tuesday’s vote, Democratic party leaders were doing everything they could to de-couple those vote from any sort of national trend.

As evidence they cited the fact that Democratic performance in the district has been eroding for years. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got 67 percent of the vote; Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) got only 56 percent in 2004, and Barack Obama 55 percent in 2008.

Moreover, Democratic strategists noted that they had a fairly weak candidate in Weprin, whose campaign was plagued by gaffes. He was chosen by party leaders largely because he promised not to challenge another incumbent in 2012, should his seat be eliminated in redistricting.

With New York slated to lose two seats due to growth over the last decade that lagged the national average, the 9th is considered ripe territory to be eliminated although no formal redistricting discussions have taken place.

As we’ve written, special elections are notoriously unreliable as predictors of future results. But for now, Democrats have reason to be spooked.

If Democrats had any wisdom at all, they were be spooked about the fact that very nearly all of them are going to burn in hell forever someday.  But as it is they’re more “spooked” the way cockroaches are spooked when you turn on the light in the kitchen.

The granddaddy of überliberalism New York Times said that Democrats were getting real scared about Obama’s chances of getting re-elected just a couple of days ago.  How do you think they feel tonight after losing a seat they’d held for almost a hundred years?

Democrats are following their failed president straight into the disaster they deserve. Leprosy is more popular than this total loser.

Obama Following Way Of Dodo Bird To Extinction

September 13, 2011

The New York Times  had a piece a couple of days ago that basically said, “Please do not walk, but run screaming to the exits as Team Obama crashes into the dirt.”

Yesterday we had this:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, September 12, 2011

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

Overall, the president’s Approval Index rating has been at -20 or lower every day for two full weeks and every day but two for more than a month. For President Obama, the ratings have never before remained this low for this long. Even during the final month leading to Election 2010, the Presidential Approval Index fell to minus 20 just once.  Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 16% Strongly Approve and 44% Strongly Disapprove.

And this comes AFTER Obama announces his regurgitated pathway to still more joblessness.

Way to win those independents, Barry Hussein.  Obama is piling a -28 disapproval rating with independents upon his -20 disapproval rating with all voters.

Say hello to Dodo when you see him, Barry.

Personally, I can’t tell Barry Hussein and the Dodo bird apart, anyway.

Ponzi-Scheme Alert: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient

September 13, 2011

Rick Perry called Social Security a “ponzi scheme.”  For which he was lambasted by the mainstream media.

I mean, how DARE he call Social Security what it clearly is?

Well, here’s the bad news for you, you anti-Perry sub-rock-dwellers:

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
By Terence P. Jeffrey
September 12, 2011

( – There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.

That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.

Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was borrowed by government and taxpayers must eventually repay.

In its latest annual report, the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion.

The board of trustees also reported that there were 156.725 million “covered workers” in the United States who paid some Social Security taxes during 2010. But these 156.725 million “covered workers” included all workers—including government workers—who were “paid at some time during the year for employment” on which Social Security taxes were due. People who worked full-time for 52 weeks during the year were included with people who worked only part-time for a month.

The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010.

That meant, as the Social Security board of trustees reported, that there were just 2.9 “covered workers” who paid some Social Security taxes in 2010 for each individual who received Social Security benefits.

(According to the Social Security board of trustees, there were 41.9 “covered workers” per Social Security beneficiary in 1945.)

However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has generated data indicating how many full-time workers there were in the country in 2010 and how many of these worked in government as opposed to the private sector.

According to BLS, there were 111.714 million full-time workers in the United States last year. Of these, 18.073 million worked for local, state or federal government, and 93.641 million worked in the private sector.

The 93.641 million full-time private sector workers last year worked out to 1.75 for each person receiving Social Security benefits.

These 93.641 million full-time private sector workers were the foundation of the tax base that supported both government at large and Social Security in particular.

Prior to 1983, states and localities could legally opt their employees out of the Social Security system. In 1981, for example, the employees of Galveston County, Texas, voted 78 percent to 22 percent to opt out of the Social Security system for a locally run retirement plan. Brazoria and Matagorda counties in Texas also opted out of Social Security.

You damned liberals are dead dumbass fools walking, aren’t you?

In 1960 there were 5.1 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree.  But liberals like to murder little babies, and 54 million aborted workers later things are really starting to suck.

Proverbs 8:36 describes all those who hate God “loving death.”  And that fits Democrats to a “T”.

D. James Kennedy rightly warned us about the socialist takeover of health care (aka ObamaCare):

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU.”

Now Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017.  And Democrats are going to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE it goes bankrupt by refusing to allow the system to get the changes it needs to even possibly remain solvent.

And of course grandma and grandpa are going to find themselves standing in front of death panels to justify their existences.

Actually 160 separate and distinct death panels, mind you:

One particular progressive liberal put it best:

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don’t want to punish anybody. (INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”

But I didn’t have to go back that far in time to prove my point.  I merely wanted to document that liberal progressives HAVE ALWAYS “loved death.”  I can also cite recent stuff from liberal progressives, such as this beauty by liberal progressive Robert Reich:

“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Having commented on that statement before, I went on to also document the following:

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan. Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues. Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.” Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care. Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity. Or die without it. It doesn’t matter. What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle. And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.

So when I call Democrats “fascists,” it’s not like I’m exaggerating or anything; it’s simply what those dangerous and toxic rat bastards are.

And old people are supposed to be afraid of Rick Perry because the man had the indecency to say the truth maybe – MAYBE – in time to do something to prevent a soon-coming holocaust of senior citizens???

Take a look at the following peer-reviewed International Monetary Fund publication claim and tell me that Rick Perry is the enemy:

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

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

$200 TRILLION?  That’s our unfunded liabilities, thanks to evil liberal progressvies who have been slowly killing us for the last seventy years setting up the day when the American people would die by the tens of millions.  Do you got that in your pocket?  Because I sure don’t.

I got bad news for you, grandma and grandpa.  But you’re going to die.  And you’re going to die because the same party that set up your death (the Democrats) are actively working to ensure that your future medical care gets its life support plug pulled so you can “die with dignity.”  Which is another way of saying so Democrats who set up programs that were GUARANTEED to collapse can now wash their hands of you and walk away while you slowly and painfully die.

I support Rick Perry for president.  The man who is honest enough to point out the problem is the only man who can even possibly have the courage and will to fix that problem.  Because my mom and dad are on both Social Security AND Medicare.  And I don’t want any God DAMNED (and by that I mean, “damned by God to HELL”) Democrats killing them off while I’ve got a breath of life left in my body.