Archive for February, 2012

Gasoline Prices Have Nearly DOUBLED In Just Three Years Of Failed Obama Presidency – Exactly As Conservatives (And Obama) SAID WOULD HAPPEN.

February 21, 2012

When we say that Democrats deserve all the demonization that they handed out, we meant it.

Let no one ever forget how Democrats – including Barack Obama – demonized Bush when gasoline prices went up:

What Ever Happened to All Those ‘Price-Gouging’ Investigations by Democrats?
by Wynton Hall

With gas prices now almost double what they were on the first day of President Barack Obama’s presidency, we’re left to wonder: what ever happened to all those “price gouging” investigations Democrats launched four years ago to relieve pain at the pump?

In 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats would enact plans to bring down the price of gas. But as this GOP ad makes clear, that didn’t happen.

Then, with the presidential election heating up in May 2007, Rep. Nancy Pelosi rolled out the tried and true “blame Bush” tactic and said that high gas prices were the result of “the Bush Administration’s failure to enact a comprehensive energy strategy.” Furthermore, Rep. Pelosi said that the Democratic Congress would “take America in a new direction” and “make up for years of inaction” by Republicans. The San Francisco Congresswoman went on to tout the actions taken by the Democratic Congress within the first 100 hours of their taking power.

The day Rep. Pelosi made those comments, the national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.07. Today, in 2012, it’s $3.39 a gallon.

Rep. Pelosi, however, was not alone in promising to right the wrongs of the “two oil men in the Oval Office.” Then-candidate Barack Obama promised that, if he were elected president, gas prices would plunge because he would impose a “windfall profits tax” on any oil producer who sold oil above $80 a barrel. But no sooner did he win the presidency than did Mr. Obama ditch the proposal altogether, even going so far as to remove mention of it from his Transition Team’s website.

Of course, anyone who was paying careful attention in 2008 to then-candidate Barack Obama should hardly be surprised that energy prices have skyrocketed on his watch. After all, during the last presidential election, Mr. Obama admitted that he was perfectly aware that his own energy policies would result in skyrocketing prices–and that he was fine with that.

Indeed, Mr. Obama flatly stated that he preferred that gas prices rise–albeit “gradually”–in order to reduce American reliance on oil.

But the Democratic sound and fury over removing our pain at the pump signified nothing. With just 10 months until the 2012 presidential election, gas prices are almost twice what they were when that oil-loving meany George Bush left office.

Why? Because oil prices hinge on basic supply and demand, not a price-fixing conspiracy by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the owner of your local gas station, as many Democrats would have voters believe. To be sure, OPEC has an enormous influence on the price of a barrel of oil. But Energy Forum Director Amy Myers Jaffe of the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University says that so-called price-gouging investigations are just a political shell game. “That’s just camouflage,” Ms. Jaffe told CNN. “That’s just ‘I want to pretend I’m doing something even, though I’m doing nothing.’”

With petroleum analysts now predicting that the price of a gallon of gas may well reach $4 a gallon by summer, Mr. Obama’s reelection hopes may rest on whether he can make manifest the promises he made four years ago to relieve America’s pain at the pump. If so, he better hurry. Summer gas prices will soon be here–and will further underscore Mr. Obama’s failure to make good on yet another campaign promise.

So with that record of Democrat demonization, let us just point out that these people deserve to get punched right in the mouth as nobody ever deserved to get punched right in the mouth.

Consider the following facts:

Gas prices are highest ever for a February
by Chris Kahn – Feb. 19, 2012 12:43 AM
Associated Press

NEW YORK – Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.
 
At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April.
 
“You’re going to see a lot more staycations this year,” says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. “When the price gets anywhere near $4, you really see people react.”

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he’s ever seen.
 
“I guess we’re going to have to drive less, consolidate all our errands into one trip,” Coudle says. “It’s just oppressive.”

February follows January, of course, and according to an LA Times headline, January 2012 was similarly THE MOST EXPENSIVE JANUARY FOR GASOLINE IN AMERICAN HISTORY:

2012 begins with highest January gasoline prices ever

Well, let’s get in our time machine and go back to last year (2o11) and see how Obama fared in gas prices:

Gasoline prices were higher last year in America than they had EVER been:

U.S. drivers spend record amount on gasoline in 2011
Despite lower demand, more than $448 billion has been paid so far for fuel — $100 billion more than in 2010. Consistently high oil prices are blamed.
December 09, 2011|By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times

American drivers this week broke a record that will bring them no joy.

They collectively spent more than $448 billion on gasoline since the beginning of the year, according to the Oil Price Information Service, putting the previous record for gas expenditures — set in 2008 — in the rearview mirror with weeks of driving still to go.

It’s also a huge jump over last year, when U.S. drivers spent more than $100 billion less on gas.

The major reason for the record-setting gas spending in 2011 was that oil prices were consistently high all year. And that probably brought joy at the other end of the pipeline. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is on pace to top $1 trillion in net oil exports for the first time, or 29% more than last year.

But suddenly the same mainstream media and the same Democrat Party that demonized George W. Bush every single day that gasoline prices were high say none of this catastrophically high gas price business can possibly be messiah Obama’s fault.  Even though I pointed out that this was all simply the stated fruition of Obama all along:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

As you contemplate $4 and even $5 a gallon gasoline prices, let me just say one word: KEYSTONE.

The New Mental Illness Created By The Mentally Ill (And Failed) Obama Presidency

February 20, 2012

Conservatives like myself have repeatedly warned of the moral hazard and economic insanity of providing unemployment benefits for life like the Democrats want.

Who knew that it also created psychological insanity???

Report: Millions of jobless file for disability when unemployment benefits run out
Published February 19, 2012 | FoxNews.com

Being unemployed for too long reportedly is driving people mad and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in mental illness and other disability claims.

The New York Post reported Sunday that as unemployment checks run out, many jobless are trying to gain government benefits by declaring themselves unhealthy.

More than 10.5 million people — about 5.3 percent of the population aged 25 and 64 — received disability checks in January from the federal government, the Post wrote, a 18 percent jump from before the recession.

Among those claiming disability, 43 percent are asking for benefits because of mental illness, the Post wrote. A growing number of those people are older, former white-collar workers.

Disability claims come from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is set to go broke in 2018. Congress last week agreed to dip into the revenue stream to give a 2-percentage point tax break to working Americans.

The Post noted that the more people file for disability claims, the better for the unemployment picture since those people are removed from the jobless rolls.

The only things that are genuinely increasing under this president are all really, really bad things.

For more on the reality of unemployment under the Obama regime, see my other post from today here.

Where Are The Jobs, Obama You Liar???

February 20, 2012

What should you call a president who falsely keeps claiming that he’s created millions of jobs when in reality he’s annihilated more than EIGHT MILLION JOBS since taking office???

I call him a liar.

Barack Obama is a pure, distilled liar.  When I heard those Jeremiah Wright sermons, and understood that Barack Obama had spent more than twenty years voluntarily submitting himself and his family to a toxic church under a racist, un-American, Marxist preacher, I KNEW that Barack Obama was a truly evil man.  I had a vision of America uner this wicked man – and it looked like our present state.

Thirteen million Americans are now out of work and simply not being counted.  Well under 2/3rds of the potential American labor force that ought to have jobs are working.  Or, to put it another way, more than a THIRD of the American workforce has been completely shut out of the work force under this presidency and the “leadership” of a Democrat Party that hasn’t even bothered to write a budget in 1,024 days.

Where are the jobs?
Bob Beauprez

Three years ago yesterday Barack Obama signed his $800 billion Stimulus into law in Denver, Colorado.

He said would save or create 4 million jobs and that the unemployment rate would be below 6% by now. He failed.

Obama’s spending didn’t stop with the Stimulus of course. In fact he’s piled up more than $4 trillion of new debt during his first three years with more than a trillion of additional red ink expected this year.

Still the question remains, where are the jobs? Today more than 13 million Americans that want a job can’t find one. Another 4 million Americans have given up even trying to find work. Five million jobs lost in the recession have yet to return. This has already been the deepest and longest lasting recession since the Great Depression. Barack Obama squandered trillions of dollars and American’s still wonder, “Where are the jobs?” he promised.

The following graph is courtesy of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC). It charts the steep decline of the Labor Participation Rate (LPR) from January 2005 to the present. The LPR represents the number of people employed or looking for a job out of the total age-eligible workforce. It is an indication of the confidence level in the state of the economy. It’s not a very encouraging picture, and yet another serious indictment of the failed policies and wasteful spending of this Administration.

From the Republican Study Group:

Democrats said their costly plan ($1.2 trillion, including interest) would “save or create” up to 4 million jobs and bring the unemployment rate down to about 6% today. The unemployment rate has not fallen below 8% at any point in the last 36 months. Furthermore, the official unemployment rate does not actually count unemployed people who have given up looking for work.

The above chart shows the “labor force participation rate.” This statistic represents the share of working-age Americans who are either employed or unemployed but looking for work. It is not a pretty picture. Only 63.7% of working-age Americans are currently in the workforce – the lowest in almost 29 years!

To put it another way, 36.3% of working-age Americans do not have a job and are not even looking.

Here’s another sobering chart that comes to the same conclusion.  Only it also points out that Obama has actually manufactured a jobs holocaust by destroying EIGHT MILLION JOBS:

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf acknowledged Obama’s destruction of jobs:

That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director. “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked.

“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”

Here’s the bottom line of the Obama economy:

Even Ezra Klein states that if the same labor force participation rate applied from the Bush years, the actual Obama unemployment rate would be at 11 percent. James Pethokoukis of Reuters calculated it at 11.3 percent. And Tyler Durden using the most recent data calculates it at 11.4%.

It’s an economy for people who love living off the government tit while working Americans struggle more and more to deal with the consequences of staggering government debt.  It’s an economy for people who frankly despise America and believe it should be just one more mediocre country among all the other mediocre countries.

The real unemployment rate, according to Gallup, is over NINETEEN PERCENT.

Oh, and one other thing: after creating permanent unemployment over the Republicans’ repeated objection, Obama has created a permanently unemployed and unemployable “worker” who is now filing for disability to further weaken our collapsing Social Security system even as Obama used political demagoguery to seize another $100 billion from a system that is teatering on the verge of bankruptcy.

Obama’s only talent is blaming Bush and demonizing Republicans for everything that he’s been responsible for over the last three years and change.  We’re going down hard under this failed president’s “leadership”; and we deserve to fail until we refuse to tolerate him for one more day and force him out of office.

Myth: Obama Birth Control Mandate Will Bring Down Costs. FACT: Obama FORBID Consideration Of Cost Control In That Mandate

February 18, 2012

You’ve smelled this particular emanation of bovine feces before; remember when Obama and all the Democrats were assuring us that ObamaCare would bring down the cost of health care???

And now we’re learning – you know, after Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass ObamaCare “so you can find out what is in it” – that ObamaCare will actually TRIPLE the damn cost of health care.

So now the left and the Democrats and Obama and the mainstream media are assuring us that trampling on the First Amendment, on religious freedom, on personal conscience and on the rights of people NOT to have Antichrist governing every aspect of our increasingly miserable lives will give us a cost savings.  They’re telling us that health insurance companies will save all kinds of money if Obama forces the Catholic Church to violate its theology that Catholics had held for one thousand-five hundred years and provide birth control, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.  And that they will then pass all that savings on to you.

Well, that sounds good, but it’s a lie just like pretty much every other thing that the left says.

Here’s the FACTS:

Obama: Mandate Saves Money; Mandate Authors: HHS Forbid Determining If It Saves Money
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 16, 2012

CNSNews.com) – There would be no consideration of cost effectiveness.
 
That was the explicit condition that the Department of Health and Human Services imposed on the panel of health-care experts it commissioned to develop the “preventive services” mandate that will require virtually all health-insurance plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and contraceptives—including those that cause abortions.
 
The fact that HHS prohibited the panel from considering the cost effectiveness of the mandate it developed sharply contrasts with President Obama’s declaration at the White House last Friday that his administration had adopted the panel’s recommendations precisely because they will “make the overall cost of health care lower.”

One economist who served on the panel, meanwhile, suggested in a dissenting opinion that the panel’s recommendations in fact might not be cost effective and that the panel’s process for arriving at its recommendations “tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”
 
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that Obama signed in 2010 included a provision that all new health care plans would be required to cover “preventive services” without charging any fees or co-pay to the insured. The law allowed the secretary of health and human services to determine which “preventive services” would be mandated for women.
 
HHS commissioned and funded a committee of scientists, operating under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine (a part of the National Academies of Sciences), to recommend which “preventive services” for women should be included, cost free, in all insurance plans.
 
The panel—The Committee on Preventive Services for Women–had only 6 months to do its work and met only 5 times. On July 19, 2011, it issued a report with its recommendations. These included the following: “The committee recommends for consideration as a preventive service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”
 
Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 1 of last year, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the panel’s contraception-sterilization recommendation as a new federal regulation—set to take effect on Aug. 1 of this year.
 
In its report, the committee had noted the short time in which it had to work and repeatedly reiterated HHS’s order that it could not consider cost effectiveness in determining its recommendations.
 
“The committee met five times within six months,” the report said.
 
“The cost-effectiveness of screening or services could not be a factor for the committee to consider in its analysis leading to its recommendations,” the report said.
 
“However, it should be noted that the committee did not have adequate time or resources to conduct its own meta-analyses or comprehensive systematic review of each preventive service,” the committee warned.
 
“Finally,” the committee said, “cost-effectiveness was explicitly excluded as a factor that the committee could use in developing recommendations, and so the committee process could not evaluate preventive services on that basis.”
 
“Furthermore,” the committee said, “for consistency in approach with the other three guidelines used by the ACA and given the time limitations for this study, the committee was restricted from considering cost-effectiveness in its process for identifying gaps in current recommendations.”
 
One of the 16 members of the panel—Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health–issued a dissenting report. He criticized the panel’s process for lack a rigorous analytical method and for filtering things “through a lens of advocacy.” He also suggested there was good reason to believe the panel’s recommendations might not be cost effective.
 
“Readers of the Report should be clear on the facts that the recommendations were made without high quality, systematic evidence of the preventive nature of the services considered,” Lo Sasso wrote. “Put differently, evidence that use of the services in question leads to lower rates of disability or disease and increased rates of well-being is generally absent.
 
“The view of this dissent,” wrote Lo Sasso, “is that the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through the lends of advocacy. An abiding principle in the evaluation of the evidence and the recommendations put forth as a consequence should be transparency and strict objectivity, but the committee failed to demonstrate these principles in the Report.”
 
Lo Sasso also raised a question about the potential cost effectiveness of offering some preventive services for free because it would create a “benign moral hazard”—leading more people to utilize the free service.
 
“Whether coverage of preventive service leads to a reduction in healthcare expenditure depends on the fraction of enrollees using the service before the service becomes covered and the magnitude of the response among enrollees who experience the reduction in out-of-pocket price,” wrote Lo Sasso. “Knowing how elastic patient demand is to preventive services is a critical element to a coverage decision even if one already has good estimates of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This is self-evidently a useful parameter to know for any preventive service because it highlights the impact that first-dollar coverage of the service will have, perhaps in relation to other forms of outreach.”
 
Because the committee was not given the time to do a serious analysis of the real impact of the recommended “preventive services,” Lo Sasso recommended that Secretary Sebelius not mandate the services “until such time as the evidence can be objectively and systematically evaluated.”
 
Despite the fact that this scientifically panel charged with coming up with the recommended preventive services had been expressly forbidden from looking at their cost effectiveness, President Obama declared that his administration had moved forward with the recommendations precisely because of their cost effectiveness.
 
“As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost,” Obama said last Friday at the White House. “That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money–for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.

“We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control,” said Obama. “In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.”

So we have a tyrant who states something as a FACT that he EXPLICITLY demanded not be tested to see if it was true.  Which ought to tell you that his “fact” is in fact probably false.

We have become a nation of despicable people who believe lies.  That’s the bottom line.  People who believe lies and reject the truth are little better than the people who tell the lies in the first place.

We’re seeing “the big lie” over and over and over again from this administration.  And what is most frightening is how Obama lies “in the name of science.”

On the economic front, Obama is telling one lie after another – and using a methane-foggy haze of cooked “statistics” to sell them to an amoral people.

Obama has his thugs at taxpayer-funded Media Matters trying to personally destroy anyone who gets in the way of their messiah:

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News: “This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”

We also find that this taxpayer-funded leftwing hit organization met routinely to coordinate with top-level White House officials such as Valerie Jarrett.  And that their propaganda was routinely picked up by major media sources such as MSNBC, the Washington Post, etc.  And if that isn’t enough, Obama has developed his own Ministry of Propaganda euphemistically called the “Truth Team” to do Obama’s billion-dollar-funded campaign bidding.

Obama is playing the most naked brand of divisive politics to pit – in purely socialist terms – one group against another while he has continually made false promises to poor people who frankly ought to know better by now.  He is promising people whatever it will take to ensure his re-election.

Obama demonically pitted women against Catholics in order to win the women’s vote by sacrificing the Catholics and forcing them to pay for “services” they have found morally reprehensible for one-and-a-half millennia.  That’s how he rolls.

I think back to some haunting words:

…..Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“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.”

America will discover one day – especially if it re-elects this despot – that they voted for a truly evil man who did nothing but hurt them while constantly promising he would heal them.

Real Unemployment Rate Under Obama Over Nineteen Percent (As In FDR-Great Depression Unemployment)

February 17, 2012

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, after six years of failed FDR policies, unemployment was 20.7%

Obama is campaigning all over boasting that he’s cut the unemployment rate.  They say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.  And Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate is of the most demonic category of lie.

Here’s the reality:

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted

  % Employed full time for an employer % Underemployed % Unemployed
01/26/2012 64.60 18.40 8.60
01/27/2012 64.40 18.50 8.70
01/28/2012 64.20 18.60 8.60
01/29/2012 64.10 18.70 8.60
01/30/2012 64.20 18.60 8.60
01/31/2012 63.90 18.70 8.60
02/1/2012 63.90 18.80 8.70
02/2/2012 64.00 18.70 8.70
02/3/2012 64.00 18.70 8.70
02/6/2012 64.10 18.70 8.70
02/7/2012 64.10 18.80 8.80
02/8/2012 64.00 18.80 8.90
02/9/2012 64.00 18.90 8.90
02/10/2012 64.00 19.00 8.90
02/11/2012 63.70 19.30 9.10
02/12/2012 63.90 19.20 9.00
02/13/2012 63.90 19.10 8.90
02/14/2012 64.00 19.10 9.00
02/15/2012 64.00 19.00 9.00
02/16/2012 63.80 19.10 9.10
Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Respondents “Employed Full Time for an Employer” are those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Notice that Obama has done NOTHING to bring down the “% underemployed” figure – which counted in the official unemployment statistic when FDR was miserably failing – while he was claiming to bring down unemployment.  Which is another way of saying that there are today more Americans suffering under the Barack Obama experiment in failure than EVER.

Here’s another quote for you:

I told you so, you God-damn-America dumbasses.” — Michael Eden, almost every day of the last four years.

Obama was hailed as the second coming of FDR by the left:

And we’ve got what we voted for: another massive FDR New Deal failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, most likely followed by a world war.

Only this world war that our new FDR will bring us won’t be nearly as fun due to all the global thermonuclear weapons that will be flying around.

Here are a few more facts that your mainstream media propaganda hasn’t been telling you about:

Congressional budget chief offers dim outlook on economic growth, jobs
By Jim Angle
Published February 01, 2012 | FoxNews.com

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.
 
Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.
 
Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.” 
 
“Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said. 
 
Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement
 
“The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”
 
The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year. 
 
The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time
 
That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.  “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked. 
 
“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”
 
And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

So why would CBO Director Elmendorf have a prediction that flies in the face of the Obama-media propaganda???

Because – and here you will have to pardon my language – he has the raw “unadjusted” (meaning “unfudged”) statistics to see through the statistical bullcrap that is being put out.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge is another guy who sees through the lens-distorting effect of all the bovine feces.  In commenting about the real plunge in retail sales, Durden said:

The topic of BLS propaganda seasonal adjustments has been discussed extensively here especially in light of January’s NFP beat. We’ll leave it at that. However, we were rather surprised to note that the Census Bureau may have also ramped up its seasonal adjustment “fudge factoring” because when looking at the January headline retail sales data, which naturally was a smoothly continuous line on a Seasonally Adjusted basis, rising from $399.9 billion in December to $401.4 billion in January, something rather odd happened in the Unadjusted data set: the plunge from $459.8 billion in December to $361.4 billion in January, or -$98.5 billion in one month, was the biggest one month drop in retail sales in history. Now we won’t say much on this topic, suffice to say that it would be far more useful if the BLS and Census Bureaus were to open up their models and explain in nuanced detail just what “old normal” adjustments they still incorporate into data sets. Because as many have already noted, seasonal adjustments used for data from 1980 to 2008 when “up” was the only allowed direction for everything, are completely irrelevant and misleading in the New Deleveraging Normal. Which reminds us: Zero Hedge will offer $10,000 to the first BLS employee to share with us the full and complete excel model set, including assumptions, data tables, and comprehensive output parameters that the agency uses to go from input A to output X. We hope that by spending that money we will finally do society a service and open up to everyone just how it is that the BLS adjusts its Non-Farm Payrolls data.

If he actually gets the chance to buy that data, I will give my contribution to Tyler Durden instead of the Republican candidate.  Because the truth will do more to get Obama out of office that any GOP ad ever could.

We’ve heard the phrase “Great Depression” bandied about.  Here are a few facts that people ought to know:

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. [Read about what to before, during and after a deflationary crash] Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

A Wikipedia article provides a few other details that ought to make someone looking at our present day rather uncomfortable:

Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[11] The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April. This was still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.[12]

Together, government and business spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. On the other hand, consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent. Likewise, beginning in mid-1930, a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA.

By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed.[13] By May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, although wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs.

I’ve pointed out a few things before: first of all, “things are starting to look a little better” is by no rational means whatsoever any kind of indicator that we’re not going to plunge; BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION

We’re being kept in the dark and fed on manure just like all the other government-cultivated mushrooms.

And we’re going to pay for it right here in good ol’ God damn America.

The beast is coming.

What Leftists Are Best At: Socialist Obama Blames Bush For All His Problems; Socialist Greece Blames Germany For All Its Problems

February 16, 2012

Barack Obama is entering the fourth year of his presidency blaming George Bush.  Think about that; the man has never once during his entire presidency taken personal responsibility.  Not ONCE.

But that’s really par for this golf course; it’s just what socialists do.

Greece thinks all of its insane spending and refusal to see the cliff rushing up on them while they stupidly continued acting like Democrats in America is all Germany’s fault.  Because, you see, Germany won’t give them more stupid money so they can keep being stupid.  The Germans have money; and of course you know the script: the rich are ALWAYS to blame.  Even if they’re in a whole other country:

Greece and Germany’s he said/she said over debt crisis
Berlin sees Athens as not living up to its end of the bailout bargain; Greece perceives a campaign of punishment by the Germans on its already-reeling economy.
By Henry Chu and Anthee Carassava, Los Angeles Times
February 14, 2012, 7:47 p.m.

Reporting from Berlin and Athens— To hear many Germans tell it, Greece is a land blessed with sunshine but cursed with a lying, cheating government that routinely breaks its promises and expects others to pick up the pieces.

The rest of Europe has doled out billions of dollars in emergency loans to keep Greece afloat, but Athens, the Germans say, has consistently failed to deliver on pledges to slash its bloated bureaucracy, sell off state enterprises, go after tax evaders and overhaul its uncompetitive economy.

Yet ask Greeks what’s happening to their country, and many respond with yowls of pain and anger — directed in large part toward Germany. Berlin, they fume, is a tyrannical taskmaster whose only motivation now seems to be to inflict as much punishment as possible on a country whose economy has already been pushed into free fall.

“What more do they want from us?” said Sophia Sigri, a 70-year-old pensioner in Athens. “This crisis has gone way beyond numbers, fiscal policies and austerity measures. Our national dignity now is at stake. Do they want to rob us of that, too?”

The divergent views have become the backdrop against which Europe’s long-running debt crisis, now in its third year, is playing out. And the fact that such attitudes appear to be hardening in Berlin and Athens, with animosity and distrust deepening on both sides, is complicating the search for a solution.

Finance ministers of the 17 Eurozone nations are scheduled to consult Wednesday in a conference call that investors hope will result in the provisional approval of a second bailout for Greece, worth about $170 billion. Without the rescue package, the country could slide into default by mid-March, with potentially disastrous consequences for the global economy.

But many in Athens believe that present conditions aren’t much better.

Though acknowledging that their government has missed some of the tough financial targets set by international lenders, they say the repeated rounds of stiff austerity cuts have resulted in a spiraling recession during which homelessness, hunger and suicide rates have all gone up.

Public outrage boiled over this week into some of Athens’ worst rioting since the start of the crisis in 2009, with dozens of buildings set afire and trashed by rock-throwing youths alongside a peaceful demonstration by thousands. Greek lawmakers swallowed hard and bowed anyway to the demands of their European partners, approving drastic cuts in wages and pensions and the elimination of 15,000 public-sector jobs this year alone, at a time when the unemployment rate already tops 20%.

German and other European officials welcomed the measures. But they warned that they are not enough for them to approve a second bailout Wednesday, insisting that Greece identify $430 million more in spending cuts and seal a deal with private investors on taking a loss on their holdings of Greek debt.

To those Germans who regard Greeks as mendacious, cavalier shirkers of duty, critics point to figures like those released Tuesday showing that, in the last quarter of 2011, Greece’s economy contracted by a whopping 7% compared with the same period a year earlier.

Many Greeks have already made heavy sacrifices as the result of one governmental austerity measure after another. The citizens of any other developed country, they say, would surely erupt in anger as well if confronted with the same calamitous drop in their standard of living.

Anti-German rhetoric and images are now a staple in Greece, where politicians mutter darkly of German jackboots and protesters call Chancellor Angela Merkel a Nazi.

“You’d think they would show some compassion for the fact that we went gentle on them after World War II. But no, they want to punish us now,” declared Fotis Stathatos, 56, an unemployed construction worker.

Germans bristle at such statements, even as they speak of the need to get even tougher on Greece. Athens is no longer a trustworthy partner but rather a huge sinkhole, many Germans say. They complain that Greek officials have happily accepted outside help while shrugging off solemn promises to lay off thousands of civil servants, privatize state assets and strengthen tax collection.

The lack of follow-through has prompted suggestions from Germany — unwelcome in Greece — that a European Union commissioner be given power over Athens’ budget and that a separate escrow account be set up to earmark government funds for repaying debt and not for frivolous spending elsewhere.

“The only thing we require is that Greece stick to its commitments,” Michael Georg Link, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, said in an interview in his Berlin office. “Nobody was forced into the European Union, and we will force nobody out of the European Union or the Eurozone. But once you’re in, you have to stick to the rules.”

Link said that Italy, Spain and Portugal have also made commitments to difficult reforms.

[…]

In Athens, residents stretched to the breaking point have grown tired of being repeatedly told to do more to atone for their financial sins. Further rage of the kind that broke out this week could await a country already teetering on the brink of economic ruin, some analysts warn.

“Greeks feel like they are being spanked for behaving badly. They’re still feeling the pain of that,” said Dimitris Mavros of the MRB polling company. “But once that beating stops or subsides … then they may strike back.”

Damn rich Germans who won’t keep pouring their hard-earned money down a sink-hole to fund liberals in their moral and mental insanity.

Of course, liberals call Republicans horrible stuff too, like “terrorists” and “demons.”  Because if you try to stop a Democrat from spending other peoples’ money, they get real nasty the way crack addicts get nasty when somebody is standing in the way of their crack.

But of course it’s even easier for Greeks to call Germans who won’t give Greece more of Germany’s money “Nazis.”

When you see all the rioting and burning and violence, you know that it’s just around the corner here as “Occupy” fascists plot the same kind of crap the Greek fascists are plotting now.

For the left, violence has ALWAYS followed the demonizing.

Let me tell you something: Greece didn’t have to come to this.  The problem was they kept seeing warning signs and kept on ignoring them.  Just as the Democrat Party and Barack Obama are doing right now in America.

If Greece had taken responsibility a few years ago and made relatively small and simple changes, they could have averted all of this terrible pain now.  But liberals in Greece demonized such modest reforms, just as liberals in America have been doing.  And as a result nothing got changed and then all of a sudden it was too late.  The same way that one day real soon it’s going to be too late here in America.

We either get these liberal vermin out of office, or we’ll be in the sad way that Greece is because IT didn’t bother to get rid of its liberals until it was way, WAAAAAAY to late.

Consider Social Security and Medicare: America’s actual debt is over $211 TRILLION.  There is no way in a thousand hells we can possibly ever pay that back.  Democrats cursed us with this mess; conservatives tried to warn them.  If you go back to the 1930s when FDR was ramming his political boondoggle ponzi scheme through Congress, you’ll discover that even DEMOCRATS warned it would ultimately be a disaster. Meanwhile, Medicare – the socialist takeover of health care began in the 1960s that Obama wants to now replace with his even BIGGER socialist takeover of health care – WILL go bankrupt no later than 2017 and cause catastrophic death in the population of seniors who depend on it.

Republicans have tried to propose fixes that would save both programs, but this is the thanks they get:

Democrats demonize Republicans – I mean LITERALLY demonize, given the whole “demons” thing – whenever we try to do the right thing.  They call us “terrorists” for trying to slow down the insane rush to spending.  I mean, how DARE we block the “progress” they’re trying to make.

They count on the American people with pathetically stupid brain-dead zombies with no intelligence and no memories so we won’t remember what Democrats were like when Bush was in power and he was trying to push through much-needed reforms:

The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

Did you know that George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES in one year to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  You know, when reforms and regulations of the out-of-control GSEs would have actually prevented the implosion we had in 2008 that Republicans and conservatives had repeatedly warned us about???

We’re going to be Greece soon for the same reason that Greece is Greece now.  Because we’re just too damn stupid and depraved to get rid of our liberals.

I Like Red Wing Boots. But What Happens When They AREN’T ‘Built To Last’?

February 15, 2012

Update, September 24, 2012: I changed the title to better reflect what is now going on with this article.  The original title was “Built To Last? What In The World Has Happened To Red Wing Boots?”

Update, March 14, 2012: I have completely changed my tune about Red Wing: as the comments below indicate, Red Wing immediately reached out to me and resoled my boots absolutely free of charge (even shipping).  The customer service rep explained that there was a recall on the particular sole due to a defect issue (that I never found out about) and I sort of fell through the cracks.  But Red Wing ultimately took care of me.

To thank Red Wing for the customer service that I had always counted on, I also purchased a brand new pair of Red Wing boots (style #2233).  As I have stated: when it comes to my feet, I want the best boots I can afford.  I learned when I was in the Army that if you can have quality anything, get a quality weapon and then get yourself some quality boots.

I will be editing this article substantially in the near future: but I wanted to immediately acknowledge Red Wing’s excellent treatment of one customer.

I’ve had a long relationship with Red Wing Boots.  Other than when I served in the military, I have had a pair of Red Wings in my closet since I was in high school.  I actually own three pairs of Red Wings as I speak:

But I’m not real happy about Red Wing these days.

The latest addition to my Red Wing flock was a complete fiasco.

I’ve been happy with the low quarters shoes on the right side of the picture; I’ve had them since 2006/07 and they’ve been great.

The pair in the middle are positively ancient; I bought them when I lived in Oregon in the 1980s and had them resoled this year (I have a complaint about that, too, and will talk about it later; but it’s minor compared to the remaining pair of Red Wing boots on the left side of the above picture).

There is no question that Red Wing used to be a shoe and boot company of premium quality.

The nutmeg boots that utterly failed about as much as a pair of boots could fail are Style #2406 (Nutmeg).  I note that they are still for sale at outlets such as CityShoesOnline as of February 13 – though I was told when I called customer service that they were NOT sold online.  He wasn’t interested in looking at my link to demonstrate otherwise.  I bought these boots in late 2006/early 07 as well because they were on sale and I thought steel toed boots might come in handy.  But I barely wore them and ended up storing them the exact same way and in the exact same place I’ve stored my other boots.

When it came time to have the black boots – again, that I’d had since the 1980s – re-soled – I dug out the Nutmeg Red Wings to wear on my hikes.

I wore them about a month.  And then one day I noticed this had happened:

Here’s a close-up:

I could provide more pictures, but I think it is rather obvious from these that the tread is virtually new.  They had very little wear on them.  But the soles just little fell apart.  It’s like they still looked brand new other than the fact that they were disintergrating.

When I picked up the boots I had resoled, I brought these Nutmegs with me (the Euclid store in Anaheim, California was also the store of purchse of the Nutmegs) and asked what Red Wing would do about it.  He said he couldn’t do anything about it but told me to contact Red Wing customer service.  He also said they could not be re-soled.

So I called customer service.  They told me only the stores could do anything.  But that they could be re-soled.  This frustrating exhange occurred following my sending three different emails to customer.service@redwingshoe.com and receiving not so much as a “go to hell” back from them.

Red Wing “customer service” used to be a lot better; and the deterioration of their customer service has matched the deterioration of the quality of their products.

The boots are obviously “out of warranty.”  I understand that.  Legally, Red Wing does not have to do anything.

But here’s the thing: I’ve got three other pair of shoes/boots that are FAR older than the Red Wings that fell apart – and which were stored FAR longer under identical conditions (in boxes which were in totes in an air-conditioned closet) – and have held up fine.  Here they are:

A little history on these:

The pair on the left is the oldest; they are Corcoran “jump boots” that I was authorized to wear with my dress greens as a paratrooper in the U.S. Army.  I bought them in 1983.  Unfortunately, I scuffed the toe of one boot badly enough that they were no longer dress uniform “worthy.”  And the sole of Corcoran jump boots is rather smooth and slick.  So I had an additional sole added in 1984.  And I have had them ever since.  They are still fine; the soles are still fine.

The pair in the middle are also rather ancient.  They are Browning insulated and waterpoof boots.  I bought them about 1988.  I wore those on all kinds of hiking/backpacking expeditions.  They are also still fine.  And the soles – while worn now – are still in decent shape.

The third pair on the right is a surprise.  They are Rockports, and I have had them since the late 1980s.  As ugly as the things are, they have lasted and lasted, and they are quite comfortable with my medical insole that doesn’t fit in most of my other footwear.

When I was at the Red Wing store, the manager felt bad enough about the boots to offer me free plastic heel clips that prolong heel life (they cost about a buck).  He put them in a bag that had this logo:

The serious question is: How “built to last”?

Do they last anywhere near as long as Corcoran?  As long as Browning?  As long as Rockport?  Not anymore, apparently.

Does Red Wing stand behind their products? Not anymore, they don’t.  Are they “built to last?”  Nope.

If you want “built to last,” you’d better look somewhere else.

Am I going to be investing any more of my money on top-dollar Red Wing products that are no longer anywhere NEAR the level of quality they need to be to justify their prices?  No.

It’s amazing.  I am seeing a marked deterioration in quality in nearly everything I buy these days.  Practically nothing is “built to last” anymore.

Btw, I mentioned I had a pair of Red Wing boots re-soled.  Guess what?  They had a one year warranty (which means you figure that’s the absolute minimum length of time they should last), and they managed to peter out just short of that period.  But having already had my previous experience with Red Wing “customer service,” I didn’t even bother to complain.

Party Of Lies: Barack Obama Sent His New Chief Of Staff Out To Lie To Falsely Blame Republicans Over Democrats’ Failure To Pass ANY Budget

February 15, 2012

Obama’s new Chief of Staff Jack Lew made the rounds Sunday, February 12.  And he lied to every single mainstream media outlet that would welcome his lies.  And not ONE network host challenged his Big Lie.

Jack Lew has been around.  He is an experienced Washington insider who understands the rules of the political process.  He actually served twice as Bill Clinton’s budget director.  So to say he made a “misstatement” is simply a lie.  Jack Lew tried to falsely demonize the Republican Party for the pathetic and abject failure of the Democrat Party to pass ANY budget for well over a thousand days (that’s nearly three years).

This was clearly no accident.  Lew said the same totally false thing again and again on the morning political talk programs.  As Politifact CLEARLY points out:

Most business in the Senate is subject to filibustering — that is, actions, or even just threats, to talk a bill to death. Filibusters can be overcome by what’s known as a “cloture” vote that shuts off debate and moves a measure toward final consideration. For the Senate to agree to cloture requires 60 votes — a high threshold that many Senate majorities are unable to muster on controversial votes (and, increasingly, even on relatively uncontroversial votes).

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That’s because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate — 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority — not 60 votes — is all that’s required to pass a budget resolution.

Indeed, passing a budget resolution by at least 60 votes has become increasingly rare in recent years, according to CRS data. Since 1994, the Senate vote has exceeded that vote threshold just three times, either in the initial vote or on a subsequent vote in which lawmakers consider an identical House-Senate version of the resolution.

More common in recent years are votes where 51 was enough to prevail. In 2009, the Senate even passed the final budget resolution by a 48-45 margin.

“The budget resolution vote is always a partisan affair, and rarely does it gain any minority party support,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense.

So Lew is clearly wrong to say that “you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes.” As a longtime senior official at OMB and other federal agencies, he should have known better.

Here are Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew’s own lying words on two separate programs:

From NBC‘s Meet the Press, Sunday, February 12, 2012:

MR. GREGORY: So the leadership deficit in Washington has had an impact on what business does in America and certainly our economic outlook. Here’s a stat that a lot of people may not know, but it’s pretty striking. The number of days since Senate Democrats passed a budget is 1,019. Can you just explain as a former budget director, how do you fund the government when there’s no budget?

MR. LEW: Well, you know, one of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50 votes to pass something. And there has been Republican opposition to anything that Senate Democrats have tried to do. So it, it is a challenge in the United States Senate to pass legislation when there’s not that willingness to work together. Congress didn’t do a great job last year. It, it, it drove right to the edge of a cliff on occasion after occasion. I actually think it’s unfair to blame the United States Senate for that. A lot of that was because of the extreme, you know, conservative approach taken by House Republicans.

The same Jack Lew – the same guy who was a budget director TWICE for Bill Clinton and without question understood that he was lying – went on CNN‘s State of the Union that same day and said:

CROWLEY:  I know we’ll want to talk about the tax hikes in a second, but I want to read for our viewers something that Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year.  It’s done.  We don’t need to do it, talking about last year’s two-year agreement and saying that, you know, so it’s already done.
 
This budget, I can assure you and you know, because you’ve been in this town for a long time, is going to be attacked as a political document.  This is a budget that promises 2 million more jobs if it’s passed, so that come September the president can go out there and say, well, if they’d only passed by budget, we’d have 2 million more jobs, but those darn Republicans are standing in my way, when, in fact, even the Democratic leader in the Senate says, you know what, we don’t need a budget.
 
LEW:  Well, let’s be clear.  What Senator Reid is talking about is a fairly narrow point.  In order for the Senate to do its annual work on appropriation bills, they need to pass a certain piece of legislation which sets a limit.  They did that last year.  That’s what he’s talking about.
 
He’s not saying that they shouldn’t pass a budget.  But we also need to be honestYou can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support.  So unless Republicans

And, yes, we need to be honest.  Which means we have to abolish the party of pathological liars, the Democrat Party.  And to finish his interrupted sentence, unless Republicans grow a set of testicles and rise up and hold the Democrats responsible for all of their vicious lies, this nation is doomed.

You need 51 votes to pass a budget.  The Democrat Party currently has 53 votes in the Senate.  When Obama took over, they had a filibuster-proof Senate and they could have passed ANY budget they wanted.

Let’s not forget that last year Obama submitted a budget to a Senate under the control of his own party.  It was such an abject disgrace that it went down 97-0 without a SINGLE Senator voting for it.

I know,  I know.  That was the Republicans Party’s fault, too.

You need to understand something very important about the Democrats.  They are the end result of a culture and a nation that is in pitiful decay and just about to implode.  The Democrat Party is the result of God damn America.

Ancient man did not talk in terms of “rights.”  They talked in terms of DUTIES.  They talked in terms of their duties as human beings, as family members, as citizens of a state.  And any society that fixates on “rights” and abandons the pervasive sense of duty is a society that is on the verge of perishing.  And the Democrat Party is riding the death of America like a jockey urging his horse to a faster pace into hell.

Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”  And THAT is the Democrat Party: the party of the end of the republic.

For Democrats, their “rights” ALWAYS impose duty on somebody else.  It’s my “right” to have a sex change operation, and it is the DUTY of religious conservatives to abandon their four thousand years of Judeo-Christian revelation and affirm my choice to sexually mutilate myself so I can live in my depraved life.  And it is the DUTY of those same religious conservatives to pay for that depraved act of sexual mutilation.  Women have a right to get birth control, abortion-causing drugs and sterilizations without any sort of restriction of any kind whatsoever.  And the Catholic Church has the DUTY to forsake one thousand-five hundred YEARS of clearly defined religious tradition and start providing “access” because Barack Obama is greater than God.  The messiah has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done.

What is our real debt?  It isn’t the trifling $16 trillion – $6 trillion of which was inflicted on us by Barack Obama alone in just three years – that we hear about.  It is $211 TRILLION plus:

It’s those medium- and long-term debt problems that also worry economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He says the national debt, which the U.S. Treasury has accounted at about $14 trillion, is just the tip of the iceberg.

“We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt,” Kotlikoff tells David Greene, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered. “We’re focused just on the official debt, so we’re trying to balance the wrong books.”

Kotlikoff explains that America’s “unofficial” payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.

“If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap,” he says. “That’s our true indebtedness.”

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, to make it clear, is a noted economist. He is a research associate at the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research. He is a former senior economist with then-president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He has served as a consultant with governments around the world.  And he wrote about this issue of America’s true debt in a peer-reviewed journal of the International Monetary Fund (September, 2010).  This isn’t a joke.  This is our reality.

And which party inflicted this ridiculously unpayable debt???  Which party inflicted the Social Security Ponzi scheme on us when there were in fact far better privatized equivalents at the time which would have been better funded and paid out better benefits?  Which party took over sixty percent of our health care system with a government socialist scheme that is going to be completely BANKRUPT by 2017 at the latest???

Which political party is completely responsible for these depraved government takeovers that will collapse and thus murder millions of elderly people whose only crime was being forced by the Democrat Party to pay into the Democrat Party’s boondoggle?

I think I’ve already hinted at the answer: the Democrat Party.

Democrats want to demonize Reagan and Bush for all the debt.  As I’ve already pointed out, Barack Obama has already vastly outspent George W. Bush in less than half the time.  But that debt is NOTHING compared to the TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS that Democrats are one hundred percent responsible for.

What does Obama’s personal stooge do when confronted by the FACT that his party has not bothered to pass a budget of any kind of for 1,019 days (that is 1,022 days now) according to NBC?

He deceitfully and falsely demonizes Republicans, of course.

Which is to say that the same party from hell that constantly creates new “rights” that OTHER PEOPLE must pay for is likewise the party from hell that always makes OTHER PEOPLE responsible for the hell that they create.

What’s going to be the end of the party of lies???

One day, very soon, after the collapse that the Democrat Party will have imposed upon the United States and therefore the world that has depended on the strength and integrity of the United States for a century, a figure will emerge that the Book of Daniel warned us about nearly three thousand years ago and the Book of Revelation warned us about nearly two thousand years ago.  Democrats don’t give a damn; they despise the Bible and openly mock it as a matter of routine.

Barack Obama is even now shaping the Middle East for the last days and the coming of this dictator whom the Bible rightly foretold would be “the beast.”  Just as Obama is even now shaping the United States – the only nation that has kept Israel from facing a second Holocaust even worse than the last one – for collapse. 

Barack Obama has been repeatedly proclaimed as the “messiah” by the political left.  He’s no such thing; he’s the useful idiot of the Antichrist, of the coming beast who will come riding in on his white horse to save the day after Obama has imploded the economy of the only country on earth that would have resisted him.

When this beast comes, he will be the Democrat Party’s wet dream.  He will be the big government “global unifier” that they’ve always dreamed of.  Democrats will acclaim the Antichrist.  They will vote for him.  They will take his mark.  And they will burn in hell for a well-deserved eternity of suffering for their crimes against the truth.

Obama Judge Says Americans Have The Right To Keep Arms, BUT NOT TO BEAR THEM As The Constitution Says

February 14, 2012

Okay.  You can keep arms.  As long as you never get to touch them.  See how the left is willing to compromise when it comes to your “constitutional protections”?

Oops: Obama judicial appointee says we have right to keep arms, but not to bear them
By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D. Published: 10:58 AM 02/13/2012 | Updated: 2:02 PM 02/13/2012

When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.

That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language of the Second Amendment couldn’t be clearer: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Italics mine)

Moreover, in 2010, after the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago — a case which grew out of Chicago citizen Otis McDonald’s desire to be able to defend his life and property — the court ruled against the handgun ban, citing the fact that “self-defense is a basic right.” The court also pointed out that “self defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” (Italics in original)

Clearly, there is a chasm of understanding between the Founding Fathers and U.S. Judge Myerscough, for the Founding Fathers recognized that God endowed us with the right not only to keep arms but also to bear them. Likewise, there is a near-inexplicable gulf between the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision and the one Myerscough just handed down. For the Supreme Court understands that the inalienable right to self-defense — “a basic right” — is foundational to the Second Amendment while Myerscough believes arms are to be kept not borne (a decision which necessarily limits our ability to defend ourselves).

If Obama manages to get re-elected, be ready to see more of these Myerscough-like decisions come down the pike. Decisions where judges give lip service to the Second Amendment on the one hand, while stealthily undercutting it on the other. In doing this, Obama judicial appointees will only be following their master’s lead. (For it was Obama himself who, in 2008, told us he supported both the Second Amendment and gun bans like those we’ve seen the Supreme Court strike down in Chicago and Washington. D.C.)

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

It’s an attack on the Constitution by Obama and his surrogate army of cockroaches, of course.

But given that liberal Supreme Court Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg say that the Constitution is an outdated and irrelevant document in our time, it’s really no surprise that the Obama left would so flagrantly trample on the Constitution.

And let’s not forget that while Obama is indirectly doing everything he can to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights, he is also personally hard at work to destroy our 1st Amendment rights, too.

Notre Dame Faculty Responds To Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’

February 14, 2012

Let us simply call this what it is: it is a new front in a culture war for purely political reasons that Obama started on religion, religious freedom and the right to individual conscience.  It is the imposition of excessive and burdensome regulation from a government that has already repeatedly demonstrated that it is way out of control:

Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 12, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame’s top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree.

Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame’s History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.

Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame’s May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.

“Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame’s decision to grant Obama an honorary degree–pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born “person.”

In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate–even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday–remains an “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”

“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”

“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”

When you’ve got Harvard, Princeton and Standford agreeing with Catholic Notre Dame, it is rather glaringly obvious that Obama is just WRONG.

Let me provide a couple of illustrations as to “what an insult to the intelligence” of all concerned this truly is:

1) the Catholic League – very obviously a Catholic organization – is one such organization that will be required to purchase insurance coverage to provide “free” birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations.  Obama says the Catholic League won’t have to pay anything for this; rather the insurance company that represents them will.  But what insurance company is that?  It turns out that the health insurer of the Catholic League is Christian Brothers.  But guess what?  That is ALSO a Catholic organization.  So Catholics are STILL being forced to violate their consciences as Obama tramples all over their religious freedom.  But it won’t just be Christian Brothers who pays for this “:care”; Christian Brothers and the Catholic League share costs such that each pay a percentage of the burden.  So the Catholic League will STILL be compelled to pay for treatment it morally objects to on religious grounds that the Catholic Church has held for one thousand five hundred years.

Many religious – and particularly many CATHOLIC – organizations are self-insured.  So Obama is still demanding that the Catholic Church must pay for “care” it has never had to pay for before.  It’s just a bait-and-switch tactic for fools who love nothing more than having “their intelligence insulted” to make it appear that the Church isn’t under attack when in fact it clearly IS under attack.

2) Take the garden variety situation in which a Catholic organization is not self-insured or insured through another Catholic organization.  In this case, Obama is STILL a liar.  He claims:

“Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.”

But they still have to pay for them INDIRECTLY.  And how is that anything other than a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction???

Unless Obama is volunteering to take over the premiums of all the religious organization that he is imposing his new policy on, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.

Unlimited and unrestricted access to Birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations isn’t free just because Obama declares it by fiat.  Somebody still has to pay for it.  And it is beyond “magical thinking” to believe that the insurance companies won’t increase their premiums to reflect this new level of “care.”

This “accommodation” simply reveals that Obama is a truly dishonest weasel.

One last thing.  If you look at the way the mainstream media propaganda continually depicts this story, it is all about “preventative health care for women.”  This whole boondoggle is being imposed and packaged under the guise of “preventative health care.”  Well, it’s one thing to require an insurer to provide “preventative care” for issues such as the deadly disease of diabetes.  But when you use the same language to describe a human baby as you do a deadly disease, you have crossed the line into being genuinely morally sick.  That is NOT mainstream thinking; that is the thinking of the far radical feminist left that is being deceitfully repackaged into something that masquerades as mainstream thinking.

The other thing that is just beyond nauseating is that the left and their mainstream media allies continually depict this issue as a “birth control” issue as if this is the first time in the entire history of the republic that woman have ever had “access to birth control.”  That is obviously a red herring; rather, this is the first time ever that Catholics have been put in a position in which they had to sacrifice their religious beliefs and violate their consciences to provide something that has obviously been “widely available” for decades if not centuries in America.  It is a false facade, pure and simple.

I am not a Catholic.  I do not believe that providing birth control is evil (although I most certainly DO oppose abortion-inducing drugs as evil).  But the Catholic Church has consistently maintained their belief regarding birth control for 1,500 years.  It is simply stunning that a theology which has endured for a millennium and a half cannot survive the wickedness of one Barack Obama term of office.