Obama’s Incredibly Cynical Exploitation Of The Osama Bin Laden Killing Is Positively Vile For ALL KINDS Of Reasons

“Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” the Obama campaign says.

Obama treated the anniversary of ObamaCare like it was the leper waiting to appear before the death panel (which is of course what ObamaCare truly is and how it ought to be treated).  But the killing of bin Laden is different: Obama has been doing victory lap after victory lap after victory lap on that one.

It’s supposed to be besides the fact that Obama once attacked then-presidential rival Hillary Clinton for “invoking bin Laden to score political points”:

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “Why path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.

On the eve of the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television commercial featuring an image of bin Laden and invoking President Harry S. Truman’s quote: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”

The ad never mentioned Obama by name, but it was part of the Clinton campaign’s effort to brand the Illinois Senator as inexperienced, especially in the foreign policy arena.

“Who do you think has what it takes?” the ad’s narrator says as an image of Clinton flashes on the screen. (The ad showed a brief clip of bin Laden as well as images of Pearl Harbor, the 1920′s stock market crash, Fidel Castro, the fall of the Berlin Wall). “You need to be ready for anything, especially now.”

The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.”

And yet we have another in the person of the very slimeball hypocrite who is so quick to demonize everybody else for stuff you ought to KNOW he himself will soon be doing himself.

Here we are, a few years later, and Barack Hussein Hypocrite is doing the EXACT same thing he demonized George Bush for doing and attacked Hillary Clinton for doing.  Because his DNA is pure weasel.

But let’s step aside from the “Obama, one blatant hypocrite sack of fecal matter” point and move on.

Let’s first point out that the ONLY reason that General Motors is still alive is because George Bush provided the bailout that allowed incoming president Obama to do ANYTHING.  Because if George Bush hadn’t taken that step, General Motors would have filed bankruptcy before Obama even took office.  That is simply a documented historical fact; and for Obama to try to use General Motors as a political bludgeon against Republicans is, well, just another in an incredibly long series of “weasel-in-chief” garbage rhetoric.

There were a LOT of ways to rescue General Motors without all the failed idiotic crap, boondoggle pork politics and frankly illegal partisan politicking that accompanied Obama’s bailout of GM.

The bottom line is that Obama is a president who cynically politicizes and demagogues absolutely everything under the sun.

So, just with those two above facts alone, Obama is sitting on a stool that aint got any legs with his skinny butt planted firmly in midair.  But let’s continue.

Our weasel-in-chief has tried to depict the decision to nail bin Laden as an incredibly “gutsy call.”  It wasn’t.  First, consider what would have happened when Obama’s opponents learned – and in this era of Wikileaks they most assuredly would have learned – that Barack Obama had a clear shot at Osama bin Laden and refused to take it.  So, yeah, something could have gone wrong and Obama would have probably been blamed for it.  But if he hadn’t done anything THERE IS NO QUESTION HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BLAMED FOR THAT.  So just how “gutsy” was it, really?

I mean, Obama faced a “possibly damned if you do, VERY DEFINITELY damned if you don’t” decision.  How “gutsy” of a call was it to avoid the “VERY DEFINITELY damned if you don’t” decision???

But it turns out that that isn’t the half of it.  Because remember how I said Obama has weasel DNA?  Ask yourself how a true weasel would have handled the above dilemma in which he potentially stood a chance to be blamed for deciding to go get bin Laden or to refuse to go get bin Laden.  It turns out that Obama took “the most weaselly option” possible:

What ‘Gutsy Call’?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission
by Ben Shapiro   4/26/2012

 Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation:

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.

The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

This was NOT a “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” moment for Obama.  It was not a “I have not yet begun to fight!” moment.  It wasn’t even a “You may fire when ready, Gridley” moment.  It was the tepid decision by a career bureaucrat to choose the least risky political decision while having a sacrificial lamb tied to the stake to take the blame if the least risky political decision went wrong.  Period.

With that, let’s further consider that without George Bush, without the complete overhaul of the intelligence system that George Bush created, without Gitmo and without waterboarding, Obama never would have had a shot at finding out that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Nor would our intelligence have known that Osama bin Laden was relying on couriers to remain in contact with his organization.

Here’s the proof of that in the form of another memo:

Having this information – which resulted from WATERBOARDING – was absolutely critical to identifying the location of Osama bin Laden.  Without the information that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad (a small dot on a very large globe), and without the information that bin Laden was relying on a courier who could be followed to an even smaller dot on that globe, we had butkus.

Obama’s own handpicked guy – Leon Panetta – confirmed that FACT:

Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied: ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation. … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”

When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied: “That’s correct.”

And all the other principal players in the CIA confirmed that waterboarding was a sine qua non – a “that without which” – in the nailing of Osama bin Laden.  Without that information about bin Laden’s courier and the city he was hiding in, he could have been literally in any one of a few billion caves for all we knew.  In order to find Osama bin Laden, we needed somewhere to start looking and something specific – like the courier – to start looking into.

So Obama is taking all the credit for getting bin Laden when he not only opposed but even tried to criminalize the personnel and the tactic that directly led to getting the most vital information involved in getting bin Laden.

And while I myself believe that going into Pakistan to get bin Laden was the right thing to do, let’s not forget that there have been rather awful repercussions from that act – particularly the surrender of BILLIONS of dollars in stealth technology that will surely go into the hands of every single one of our worst enemies and the even more worrisome now-glaciated relations between the United States and vital ally Pakistan.  There were huge costs to what we did – which is yet more reason that a “victory lap” is a very inappropriate thing for Obama to do.

So let me refer now to the title of this article and explain what I mean.

If I asked 100 Americans who were old enough to have lived through the time “Which president deserves credit for the moon landing” the answer would be “John F. Kennedy.”  And I mean he would get the credit 100 percent of the time.  After all, it was John F. Kennedy who said:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

But here’s the thing: we didn’t actually land on the moon until 1969.  And just who was president in 1969? 

Richard M. Nixon.  The guy who gets no credit for anything partly because of Watergate but mostly simply because he was a Republican.  JFK had been in his grave for six years when his dream of putting a man on the moon became a reality – TWICE the time it took for George Bush’s goal to get bin Laden.

George W. Bush was every bit as instrumental in the eventual nailing of Osama bin Laden was as John F. Kennedy was in the eventual putting a man on the moon:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

And:

“Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”

RICHARD CLARKE, White House Terrorism Advisor, 1998-01: President Bush said to us in the basement of the White House on the night of 9/11, “You have everything you need.” And that was true because as soon as we went to the Congress, they said, “Just tell us what you need.” Blank check.

NARRATOR: The president was determined to spend whatever was necessary and do whatever was necessary to conduct a new kind of war.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Atty. General, 2001-05: The president turned to me and said ─ in my direction anyhow ─ he said, “Never let this happen again.”

FRAN TOWNSEND, White House Terrorism Advisor, 2004-07: I understood that to mean there was no end of the earth we weren’t willing to go to, there was nothing we weren’t willing to ask for, there was nobody we wouldn’t work with. […]

J. COFER BLACK: This is a very highly classified area. All you need to know is that there was a before 9/11 and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves come off.

Bush put all the infrastructure in place to get bin Laden.  He transformed the American intelligence community.  And yes, he waterboarded the terrorists who yielded the vital information we needed.  It simply took time.  Osama bin Laden could have been literally in any of a few billion different caves spread over half the planet.  And it wasn’t like Barack Obama got out his mail-order investigator kit and found out where bin Laden was hiding by himself, was it?

Finally, Obama demagogues Mitt Romney by insinuating that Romney wouldn’t make the tough decision to get Osama binLaden had he been president.  And Obama’s “evidence” for that demonization is this quote from Romney in 2007:

LIZ SIDOTI: “Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”

That clearly doesn’t mean that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have made the decision to go in and nail bin Laden in the event that GEORGE BUSH’S WATERBOARDING had led to his location.  He was merely pointing out that we undermined ourselves if we made getting bin Laden the end-all given the fact that there are MANY TERRORISTS and even MANY TERRORIST LEADERS and getting bin Laden wouldn’t magically win the war that these terrorists started.

As an überliberal website documents, HILLARY CLINTON – now serving as Obama’s own Secretary of State – COMPLETELY AGREED WITH MITT ROMNEY.  And completely DISAGREED with Barack Obama.  As did the man who would have been THE most experienced “foreign-policy” president America had ever had since Dwight Eisenhower, Sen. John McCain.

The only reason – THE ONLY REASON – Barack Obama has been allowed to make the incredibly cynical credit-grabbing statements about getting bin Laden is because the mainstream media are incredibly biased and dishonest propagandists.

Move Over Greece. Obama Taking America To Bankruptcy: U.S. Debt-To-GDP Now Exceeds 100 Percent While Obama Spends $2.52 To Get Us A Lousy Dollar

At the moment I accessed the U.S. national debt clock, our public debt was listed at $15,689,952 trillion (as of 3:33 pm PST, April 27).

The most current figure I could find for the U.S. GDP as expressed in dollars was $15,609,697 trillion (International Monetary Fund).

And … we’re officially Greece, thank you very much.  Because that gives us a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100.5% by my calculation based on those figures.

Tyler Durden has a slightly different figure (100.8%) which is clearly based on slightly different figures.  The numbers are exploding upward so damn fast no human being can keep track of them, anyway:

Big GDP Miss: 2.2% Vs Expectations Of 2.5%, Composition Even Uglier
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/27/2012 08:41 -0400

So much for the +3.0% GDP whisper number. Instead of printing at the expected number of +2.5%, the first preliminary GDP data point (two more revisions pending) came out at 2.2%, a big disappointment for a quarter which had a substantial boost from the weather. And while of the 2.2%, Personal Consumption came in strong – as expected, as it was precisely the factor most impacted by pulling in demand forward courtesy of “April in February”, 0.59% of the 2.2% was an increase in inventories, something which was not supposed to happen as it means that the quality of the economic growth in Q1 was far worse than expected. Cementing the ugly composition of Q1 GDP was fixed investment which added just a paltry 0.18% – this is the number which is critical for ongoing cashflow generation and unfortunately, the very low print means that growth outlook for Q2 is now even worse than before and we expect economists will promptly trim their already bearish predictions for Q2 GDP. Finally, government “consumption” subtracted just 0.6% from the total number, a decrease from the 0.84% in Q4, which means that once again the government is starting to become less of a detractor to growth – a dagger in the heart to anyone who claims there is “quality” in GDP growth. And the number you have all been waiting for: At March 31, US Debt/GDP was 100.8%.

Now, the fact that our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100 percent is bad, really, really bad.  But it’s actually an awful lot worse: because as this quarter’s economic report shows we are adding debt at such a massive level compared to our GDP that it isn’t even funny.

Durden also has a chart that shows just how vast is the Obamanomics discrepancy between massive government spending and meager GDP based on the numbers from the latest GDP report out April 27 (see it put into quick perspective here):

That’s right: the great big giant red bar is Obama’s spending.  The tiny little blue bar is our gross national product.  Obama is foolishly spending massively to give us next to nothing by way of return.

Let me describe this with a picture: the great big giant sumo wrestler is Obama’s spending and the debt it is generating; the little tiny kid is Obama’s economic performance:

Who do you think is going to win (I know liberals will say that Obama is lean and wiry and he’ll take the giant out with his lofty rhetoric)???

Obama is taking the American people $2.52 deeper into debt so he can boast about the dollar he “gained” for us.

And that super-massive 252 percent discrepancy between Obama’s spending and Obama’s GDP guarantees that America is on it’s way to a quick collapse.  You’ve simply got to be demon possessed to believe that this is sustainable (which is why I now understand that “Democrat Party” is shorthand for “Demonic Bureaucrat Party”).

Here’s another chart which essentially measures the rate of our spending that gets really, truly frightening when you consider its implications:

Remember how Obama viciously demonized George Bush over his debt ceiling increase?  Only to himself push through the three highest debt ceiling increases in the entire history of the human race?

What is frightening is that everybody agrees that Bush’s spending was insane.  If you put an angle measure up to that chart, you will see that the angle during the Bush presidency increases at a 50 degree slope.  Democrats demonized Bush for his spending and conservatives agreed that it was beyond crazy.  But now do the same thing to Obama’s spending: and Oh my God it is at 80 degrees.  Ninety degrees is straight up.  WE ARE ALMOST HEADING STRAIGHT UP to a very explosive ending followed by a very long descent into the fish food genre. 

The level and extent of Obama’s failure is simply staggering.  We are going to die.  And it’s going to be a very painful death at that.

And the only possible way to at least prolong that coming agony is to get this disgrace out of our damn White House.  Because next term he’s going to kill us.

If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would actually be kind of funny.  If this was Russia or China or Iran or North Korea, I would be laughing my ass of at these numbers.  But it’s us – and it is our enemies who are laughing their asses off at our expense.

Seven Ways Abortion Holocaust Has Made America A Much Worse Place (54 Million Americans Have Been Murdered By Democrats In Abortion Mills)

Fifty-four million human beings are dead.  And the Democrat Party is the party of Holocaust in America.  Period.

Nancy Flanders examined the now-proven utterly bogus claims of abortion proponents at the time they legalized baby-killing in 1973 versus the tragic record of reality:

Seven Ways Abortion has Changed the U.S.
by Nancy Flanders
April 27, 2012

Abortion in the United States has claimed the lives of over 54 million babies since its legalization in 1973 – this we know. It has stolen grandchildren; future friends; future spouses; and future doctors, humanitarians, and congresswomen. It’s an American tragedy, and we are witnessing the beginning stages of its long-awaited demise. Unfortunately, in addition to stealing the lives of innocent children, abortion has caused a great deal of damage to American culture.

1. Children Became a Curse

If there is anything that population control committees and pro-aborts have succeeded at, it is convincing most of America that children are expensive, messy, freedom-stealing dream-squashers. The pro-abortion movement has helped to create a societal shift in our view of children. It took the joy of parenting and turned it into a tedious burden. Pro-aborts and population-control cohorts convinced women that in order to have a life of any value, they must have a career. As a result, children became an afterthought to many women. For example, often, if a woman in college finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, she is convinced she has no choice but to have an abortion because she’s been told that having a baby means she is guaranteed to be unsuccessful in college or stalled in her career. In addition, it seems that more children equals less success, less money, less possessions, and less free time, making children the apparent and ironic ultimate killers of fun.

2. Increased Child Abuse

Despite claims from early and current supporters of abortion that abortion availability leads to less child abuse because unwanted children are not born, the opposite has happened. Abortion has led to the devaluation of human life, especially of children, and therefore children are seen as expendable, undeserving creatures. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sexual abuse of children rose 83% between 1986 and 1993. In addition, physical neglect of children rose 102%, and physical abuse of children rose 42%. Those numbers are staggering and, as reported by Life.org.nz, Dr. Philip G. Ney of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Canada states that abortion is clearly a contributing factor to the rise in abuse because it creates guilt, frustration, and hostility as well as diminishes the significance of the once-unthinkable act of harming the defenseless.

3. Increased Crime Rate

Pro-abortionists have long claimed that access to abortion would lead to a decrease in crime because fewer children would be born to single mothers. But according to a 2007 study by John R. Lott, Jr. of the University of Maryland and John E. Whitley of the Institute for Defense and Analyses, there has actually been an increase in out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. since abortion became legal. In addition, there has been a decrease in the number of children given up for adoption and, therefore, an increase in the number of children being parented by single mothers. According to the study, this has lead to a 7% increase in murder rates. As reported by LifeNews.com, 5% of white children were born out of wedlock from 1965 to 1969, compared to 16% in the 1980s. Black children born out of wedlock increased from 35% to 62% over the same time period. And, unfortunately, due to the struggles of single parenthood, studies show that children of unwed mothers are more likely to become criminals.

4. Increased Discrimination

People with disabilities have been fighting for their rights for decades. They have fought for better access to public buildings, the end of discrimination in the workplace, access to an equal education, and the world’s warped perception that life with a disability is not worth living. Abortion has set the disability civil rights movement back. Even some of those who affiliate themselves with the right to life believe that abortion should be legal when the unborn child is diagnosed with a disability or genetic condition. In fact, 90% of unborn children with Down syndrome are aborted. Children are also being aborted because they have cystic fibrosis, or a cleft palate. It’s discrimination in a society that works to create more accepting, diverse communities. So why are so many of us okay with deciding that a child with a disability would be better off dead?

5. Less Respect for Women

Abortion wasn’t alone on this one; birth control played a huge part as well. Women have become much more sexually aggressive, and it’s touted as a good thing. However, birth control and abortion have helped to create a culture in which women are treated as sex objects. Predators are more likely to get away with sexually abusing their young victims because they can bring them to any abortion clinic with no questions asked. Abortion has opened the door for irresponsible, abusive men to be able to mistreat women more freely.

6. Destruction of the Family

With the lack of respect for women brought on by birth control and abortion comes the destruction of the family. If an unwed couple find themselves pregnant, the man, rather than taking responsibility and marrying his girlfriend, feels that he can just pay for an abortion and be done with “it,” leaving the girlfriend to feel the loss, pain, and guilt. If the woman decides to have and keep the baby, she is now left alone to raise a child and the man is free to live his life as he pleases. In addition, married couples who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant often disagree on how to handle the situation, but the men have no say. If the wife has an abortion, and the husband doesn’t want her to, or vice-versa, the marriage can be destroyed.

7. Opened the Door to Infanticide

In recent news, we have witnessed how abortion has lead to the acceptance of infanticide. Though infanticide in the U.S. is nothing new, the Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article justifying “after-birth abortion.” The article states that newborn babies and unborn babies are both morally irrelevant and only potential persons; therefore, parents should be allowed to euthanize a newborn baby if they decide they don’t want him. Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that after-birth abortion, or infanticide, should be legal for all of the same situations in which abortion is legal, which is for any reason at any time.

Abortion has been a dark cloud over the U.S. for 39 years. In that time we have become a culture of death, a people who collectively takes pleasure in witnessing the pain of other humans on reality television, who obsesses over celebrities with drug problems, and who chooses to selfishly focus on the material objects of our world. We don’t value each other as much, we don’t value our relationships as deeply, and we have become completely desensitized and unsympathetic. Thanks to abortion and the devaluing of human life, we are able to walk past a person dying in the street without a second thought, which is the same as killing the person ourselves.

Yet another liberal utopian myth blasted to smithereens by the truth.

Abortion was the worst thing that ever happened to women.  And that’s a fact.

Let’s never forget the infamous words of liberal Democrat heroine Margaret Sanger:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

If you’re a Democrat, I hope you are spending considerable time preparing your defense for the soon-coming day when you will stand before a just and holy God who will demand that you account for why you voted for the murder of fifty-four million of his precious children.

Obama’s Hometown of Chicago Is Totally Out Of Control (‘you should move out for the weekend … or risk being trapped inside by rioters’)

You know, I would have thought a tough-talking ballet dancer like Rahm Emanuel would have been exactly what Chicago needed to crack down on rioters.  Whodafigured he wouldn’t be up to the job?

This kind of reminds me about what I wrote about Obama before he got elected by fools, anyway: do you want a poodle or a Rottweiler?  And dumbasses said, “Give us poodles or give us death!”

And we saw how our poodle-in-chief let us down.

Residents of State Street Condo Told To Leave Chicago During NATO Summit
Updated: Monday, 23 Apr 2012, 7:07 AM CDT
Published : Friday, 20 Apr 2012, 8:37 PM CDT
By Darlene Hill, FOX Chicago News

Chicago – Residents of a Chicago condo whose building will be in the eye of the NATO storm are being warned that they should move out for the weekend … or risk being trapped inside by rioters.

FOX Chicago News was first to report Friday that the people living in the 17-floor Library Tower building at 520 South State Street were warned in a letter from condo management that “we are STRONGLY recommending that all residents find places to stay during the conference from May 18 through May 21.”

READ THE LETTER>>>

NATO summits often attract crowds of thousands of protesters. Currently, a march is planned on Sunday, May 20, from the Petrillo Band Shell in Grant Park past Library Tower on State Street to McCormick Place.

The condo is hiring two off-duty police officers to provide security; those cops will be armed.

“In the event of a riot or the potential of one near the building, all access doors will be locked including the garage door,” the letter continues. “For everyone’s safety, we will be instructing anyone in the building to stay in his or her unit.”

“I can’t just leave my garage whenever I want. They’ll be holding us hostage in here,” said resident Sebrina Krielinger.

The condo is in a busy area on State between Harrison and Congress, and residents are used to a lot.

“It’s just pretty shocking to see and hear things are going to be scary in your own home,” said resident Jeff Lunz. “I think they’ve got everyone’s best interest in mind.”

The letter also warns:

• “We are strongly recommending that you do not have any guests over during this time including dog walkers and cleaning companies.”
• “There will be absolutely no deliveries or moves permitted between Friday, May 18 and Monday, May 21.”
• “The revolving door will be locked on Friday morning.”

“I’m inconvenienced by parades and a lot of other things. I can’t get out on the day of the Thanksgiving Day parade. So that’s just a part of city life,” said Lunz.

Coach is Right added his two cents to this story, saying:

When our Secret Service returns from their activities in Colombia, they are expected to release locations of concrete barriers and no go zones around McCormick Place on South Lake Shore Drive. Just how much more can Chicago citizens be asked to take? The black on black street crimes, shootings, murders already are approaching the ten year high for U.S. wars in the Middle East. This could get 1968 type ugly.

And of course we know what Obama’s Secret Service did in Colombia, don’t we? 

Chicago is so screwed.  Liberals let them down; so they elected more liberals.  And then those liberals went to prison for corruption.  So they elected still more liberals.  And now they’re facing their own self-created Hurricane Katrina that is on the verge of swamping the city: so flee the sinking ship, ye rats!!!

Chicago is just one of many American cities who have been utterly destroyed by Democrats and liberal policies for a good one hundred years straight – and they STILL elect more Democrats!!!

The warning letter to Chicago reminds me of the signs Obama has posted in Arizona to warn the American people that he is abandoning this nation to narco-terrorist criminals:

Putting Obama or his stooge Rahm Emanuel in control of security is the equivalent of trying to make toy poodles watchdogs.

Liar-in-Chief Obama Continues To Document That He Is A LIAR With His Student Loan Demonization

We have to add a fourth category to the “liar progression chain”: there are lies, damn lies, statistics – and then there are Obama lies:

Posted on April 24, 2012 by John Hinderaker
Obama Lies to Students

Barack Obama is on a pandering tour of college campuses, trying to generate enthusiasm for his re-election campaign by warning that interest rates on student loans will rise if Congress doesn’t act by July. That is true; the Democratic Congress wrote the legislation that way, and Obama signed it. Coincidentally, no doubt, Obama’s campus appearances will all be in swing states like North Carolina, where he spoke today. Whether it is a good idea to subsidize the higher education bubble is highly debatable, but it is not a point of differentiation between Obama and Mitt Romney, who also favors extending the existing legislation.

But what I want to focus on is another instance of the dishonesty that so consistently distinguishes Obama from more reputable politicians. Katrina Trinko has the story at The Corner:

In a speech today, President Obama misquoted Tea Party congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), omitting certain words of a comment she made to give a very different impression of what she had said.

Obama did not name Foxx, referring to her as “one Republican congresswoman.”

“She said she had ‘very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with debt because there’s no reason for that,’” Obama told the students at UNC Chapel Hill. “I’m just quoting here, I’m just quoting.”

“She said students who rack up student loan debt are just ‘sitting on their butts having opportunity dumped in your lap,” he added. “I’m reading it here. So I didn’t make this up.”

But the full Foxx quote is very different.

“I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that,” Foxx said last week, per the Huffington Post.

What a liar Barack Obama is! And, like many liars, he has certain “tells.” Note how he compounds his offense by assuring his readers that he is telling the truth: “I’m just quoting here, I’m just quoting…I’m reading it here. So I didn’t make this up.” Sure, it’s on his teleprompter, so it must be right. Any time Obama goes out of his way to assure his audience that he is telling the truth, you probably can assume that he is lying. Again.

For the factual record, if George W. Bush had tried to do something this outrageous, the mainstream media would have crawled up his rectum and stuck sharp probes into his insides.

There is more than one way to lie: you can lie by selectively editing out mitigating parts – the way Obama’s NBC News propaganda recently did to falsely label George Zimmerman as a racist with it’s selective editing of the 911 call – for instance:

The Today show’s segment, which included an ellipsis on screen to indicate omitted text, ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good …’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black.’

The full conversation ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.’

Dispatcher: ‘OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black

That is exactly what the most deceitful demagogue who has ever sat in the White House did here: the half-truth that amounts to a whole lie.  He just took out the part that he didn’t like and then warped the truth with the rest.

What Virginia Foxx was VERY CLEARLY describing was students who use their college loan money the same damn way that homeowners who use their third and fourth mortgages did: you can party it up and buy whatever strikes your fancy until the bill comes due when you start whining about it or you can show a little responsibility.

I saw the above frequently as a student, and I also saw it as a professor: dirt-poor students living high on the hog with the thousands of extra dollars they get from their student loan checks – which often significantly exceed the cost of tuition and books.

If you’re even the $80,000 in debt that Foxx described as her low figure, and you aren’t in a high-paying career field (engineer, etc.) with a well-thought-out plan for repayment, you are an idiot.  And the only idiot more idiotic than you was the government that subsidized your Harvard lesbian studies degree in the first place.

The thing is that Barack Hussein is a serial liar and slanderer without shame, virtue or honor.  So lies for him are a dime a dozen:

Obama and Akin tangle on socialism and student loans
Posted on April 25, 2012 by Deirdre Shesgreen

President Barack Obama used Rep. Todd Akin as Exhibit A in his case portraying Republicans as extremists today.

Obama didn’t mentioned Akin—a St. Louis County congressman who is running for U.S. Senate—by name. But the president quoted—or misquoted—Akin (depending on who you believe) in a speech on student loans at the University of Iowa.

“You’ve got one member of Congress who compared these student loans — I’m not kidding here — to a ‘stage-three cancer of socialism’,” Obama told the crowd.

“Stage-three cancer? I don’t know where to start,” Obama continued. “Come on. Just when you think you’ve heard it all in Washington, somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end.”

Obama was referring to comments Akin made at a recent debate with his two GOP rivals in the Senate contest, John Brunner and Sarah Steelman.

Akin said at that forum that the government should not be involved in the student loan business.

“America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in,” he said, according to media reports.

Today, Akin said the president was misquoting him. “With all due respect… I was not saying that student loans are a cancer. I referred to the policies where there is a government takeover of private industries,” such as health care and student loans.

The thing about the very real fact that there has been a federal government takeover of student loans comes down to this: we are at a state of crisis with our student loan debt.

I want you to understand: I warned about what Obama was doing with student loans two full years ago.  I also pointed out:

The universities are dominated by leftists and unions, through and through. And they don’t give a damn about the students. Want to know why tuition keeps going up and up? Because the university leftists and the government leftists are on the same page. Every single time the tuition goes up, the government-backed student loans go up – which allows colleges to raise tuition further. The only way to get an education today is to go massively in debt.

Imagine if the government wasn’t interfering in the system. Few students would be able to afford the ridiculous tuition. And so guess what would happen? The tuition would go down.

Which is to say the government – interfering with the private market – is artificially screwing it up. Just like they always do.

The college tuition program began as a noble idea: to help returning WWII veterans integrate and assimilate into the American workplace via the G.I. Bill.  But that noble program was used to justify subsequent extensions and additions that over time simply became THE PROBLEM.

This is simply another example of a crisis that Obama himself created just so he could demagogue it.

So, to expand on Rep. Akin’s point, if the government WEREN’T interfering in the student loan system, universities would be forced to look at a reality that they are protected from considering now.  They would have to consider the fact that their clientele – students – cannot possibly afford to pay for their product.  And they would have to make their product – education – less expensive or go out of business.  And if the government just got the hell out of the student loan industry – expect for our veterans and a few specific targeted careers that directly benefit the nation – you would begin to see the cost of education drop precipitously as competition worked its magic.

And, yes, liberals did the same thing with mortgages.  They forcibly subsidized the mortgage market and forced the banks to make ridiculous loans and artificially created a bubble of inflated housing prices that eventually had to crash to the massive detriment of the economy.  And then they blamed Republicans – who tried in vain to stop the disaster from happening – for their mess.

And yes, they did it with health care, too.  We’re now facing costs that DEFY the outrageous lies that Democrats sold us to push a socialist takeover of our health care system representing a full sixth of the US economy.

But liberals viscerally despise the free market almost as much as they viscerally despise religion and babies.  Their goal is to kill all three.

As we speak, we have a $1.7 trillion hidden tax on the American economy that ALL Americans are paying for in the form of regulatory compliance costs.  And, yes, it is in fact a stage three cancer of socialism.

Obama, The War-On-Women President, Slow-Jams On Jimmy Fallon Show To Same Band That Played ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ When Michelle Bachmann Appeared As Guest

Yes, this is the Barack Obama who morally lectured Republicans for their “war on women” but kept Bill Maher’s money and support.

Remember this?

Michele Bachmann’s Late Night Intro Music: ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’

As the house band for dancing spider monkeyJimmy Fallon, The Roots are sometimes forced to express themselves via the intro music that they choose to play when various celebrities walk out onto Fallon’s stage.

Last night, Michele Bachmann came on the show. The intro song The Roots played for her: “Lyin Ass Bitch,” by Fishbone. Clip above.

Keep up the good work, fellas.

[via City Pages]

Yeah, Barack Obama was perfectly FINE with Jimmy Fallon’s war on women.  As long as they are women Obama and his liberal thugs hate.

Obama just appeared on Jimmy Fallon – the show that labeled the very accomplished Michelle Bachmann a “lyin’ ass bitch” and was serenaded by the same band that hated women.

According to the mass media propaganda mindset that Obama shares, it is perfectly wonderful to viscerally hate women; as long as those women aren’t liberals.

Throw that in onto the pile of which party truly hates and wars on women.

George Bush never wasted a moment of the American peoples’ times on these late night comedy shows.  Versus Barack Obama who has appeared on more of them than you could shake a dead cat at.  Because George Bush had more class in his pinky finger than Obama has ever had or will ever have.

Supreme Court AGAIN Poised To Rule That ‘Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief’ Obama Is A Fascist Thug

First ObamaCare and now Arizona law S.B. 1070.

The otherwise bizarre way Obama demonized the Supreme Court AFTER that court had taken it’s vote strongly suggests that Obama had been tipped off as to the outcome – which even most liberals predicted would go against Obama following the disastrous showing by the Obama administration’s attempt to defend its fascist takeover of the health care system – is itself a tipoff as to how the SCOTUS will rule.  Because why would Obama demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court if it is going to rule in his favor???

Obama’s attack against the Supreme Court of the United States follows his attack against the United States Congress.  And when a president attacks and demonizes the two separate branches that are co-equal with him according to the United States Constitution, that president is a fascist.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals forcibly rubbed Obama’s nose in his own fecal matter.  And very deservedly so.

Obama has been slapped down before for his fascist Constitution-defying power-grabs.  And we’d better hope he gets slapped down again for his fascist takeovers.  Because what he’s dong is frightening to anyone who loves liberty.

Obama has ALREADY BEEN SMACKED by the Supreme Court regarding his fascist-takeover attempt in Arizona.

Now we’re seeing Obama – the “constitutional scholar – on the verge of getting slapped hard in the face yet again because of his inability to understand that HE IS NOT A DICTATOR.

Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 4/25/12

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.

The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.

Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.

Even Sotomayor may very well rule against Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted Verilli to say, “It is not an effort to preempt federal law, it is an effort to enforce the law.” Roberts added that even if Arizona detains an undocumented immigrant “It’s still [the federal government’s] decision” who to deport.

Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia sided almost entirely with Arizona and ventured to an extreme where not even the state of Arizona seemed uninterested in spending much time. Scalia argued in court that the states not only have the right to enforce federal immigration law but also have the right to wholly close their borders to undocumented immigrants.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was the most sympathetic to the government’s claims, seemed unconvinced. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” she said, as Verrilli attempted to explain why it’s okay for states and the federal government to cooperate when the federal government takes the initiative but not when a state moves to mandate their cops to do so.

“Putting aside the argument that systemic cooperation is wrong,” adding, “you can see it’s not selling well,” Sotomayor asked Verilli to explain “what’s left?”

Verrilli did not have a great deal to offer.

Obama has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the United States Congress.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Supreme Court.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the states.  He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give one flying damn about the Constitution.

I’ve written about the Arizona law a number of times before (from newest to oldest):

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

Mexico Says Their Citizens Returning Home Are A Burden: How Were They Not A Burden To America?

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

Based on the oral arguments, it looks like I was right and the “Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief” was überfascist wrong.

The Stupidest Liberals Of All Are The Really ‘Smart’ Ones

George Orwell once said that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.

The man who warned us about “Big Brother” couldn’t have hit the pinhead any more on the head.

Fellow economist and Keynes biographer Roy Harrod said of famous liberal economist John Maynard Keynes:

“He held forth on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly expert, but on others of which he may have derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he happened to glance.  The air of authority was the same in both cases” [The Life of John Maynard Keynes, by Roy Harrod, 1969, p. 468].

Those who worship their own opinions have a stark raving fool for a god.

And of course Keynes’ theories that WERE “expert” have been proven utterly wrong – most recently by the spectacular failure of the Obama stimulus that was billed as costing $862 billion but which in reality will cost the American taxpayers at least $3.27 TRILLION and which accomplished NOTHING that was predicted.

Thomas Sowell is on liberal intellectuals like a pit bull is on meat delivery man in his book Intellectuals and Society.

He records that:

Visiting the United States in 1933 [the year Hitler came to power], George Bernard Shaw said, “You Americans are so fearful of dictators.  Dictatorship is the only way in which government can accomplish anything.  See what a mess democracy has led to.  Why are you afraid of dictatorship?”  Leaving London for a vacation in South Africa in 1935, Shaw declared, “It is nice to go for a holiday and know that Hitler has settled everything so well in Europe.”

But of course that wasn’t the end of Shaw’s abject idiocy on the subject of politics.  Because:

In 1939, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, Shaw said: “Herr Hitler is under the powerful thumb of Stalin, whose interest in peace is overwhelming.  And every one expect myself is frightened out of his or her wits!”  A week later, the Second World War began, with Hitler invading Poland from the west, followed by Stalin invading from the east.

For the record, Shaw’s 1933 stupidity was recorded in the New York Times on March 25, 1933 (p. 17) in an article entitled, “Shaw Bests Army of Interviewers.”  His 1935 idiocy was likewise recorded in the New York Times on March 22, 1935 (p. 21) in an article entitled, “G.B. Shaw ‘Praises’ Hitler.”  And the 1939 statement of pure moronic imbecility was recorded in a Letter to The Times of London, dated August 28, 1939 on page 11.

You’d think the man would have the common sense to shut up.  But for liberals common sense is as rare as Mars rocks on this earth.

Socialist George Bernard Shaw also infamously said:

“I don’t want to punish anybody. But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill… but it must be evident to all of you… you must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world… who are more trouble than they are worth.”

This foolish “intellectual” sentiment was echoed by Clinton Labor Secretary and Obama advisor Robert “Third” Reich:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“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.”

For the official record, I’m sure that Third Reich Rob doesn’t want to punish anybody, either.

Oopsie.

Liberalism equals fascism.  The ONLY difference between liberalism and fascism is the fact that fascists were able to carry their ideas to their logical conclusion and liberals have to keep grinding their way through the barrier of a democratic republic.

Over the weekend Barack Obama’s senior campaign strategist David Axelrod claimed that the Republican Party was operating under a “reign of terror.”  What makes that beyond laughable and approaching insane is the fact that “the Reign of Terror” was the brainchild of the very left-wing Maximilien Robespierre to implement his überleftwing utopian state by means of fear and force.  And it is simply morally sick that a liberal like David Axelrod would take a phrase that belongs in the left-wing’s hall of fame and use it to deceitfully demonize the conservatives who if anything were the VICTIMS of “the Reign of Terror.”

It has ALWAYS been the tactic of the fascist to demonize its opposition as “extreme” and thus justify the most extreme actions imaginable.  And it is no surprise that such is precisely what the Democrat Party has been trying to argue this campaign.

As we speak, we have fascist Obama out demonizing the United States Supreme Court after he just got done demonizing the United States Congress.  Which is to say that we’re blowing the last necessary puffs of air on the house of cards we call democracy in America.

Jay Leno Says Republicans Willing To Laugh At Themselves, Democrats Get Paranoid And Run To Focus Groups

“Asking a comedian to make fun of Obama is like asking a priest to mock Christ.” — Greg Gutfeld

I’m not a humorless opinion-poll-zombie, that’s why I vote Republican.

Jay Leno: Republicans ‘Laugh at Themselves More’ Than Democrats
By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2012 | 17:36

A very common media contention is that liberals have a far greater sense of humor than conservatives.

Tonight Show host Jay Leno dispelled this myth this week in a Press Pass interview with NBC’s David Gregory wherein he told the Meet the Press moderator, “Democrats and Republicans are interesting because Republicans really laugh at themselves more” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: You know, I remember, we were just talking about this, covering then Governor Bush when he came on the show back in 2000. You him on, you had Al Gore. And one of the things Bush did so well was that he was creat with you, you know, he could be funny. What about Mitt Romney? What was your take? He was here recently

JAY LENO: You know, Democrats and Republicans are interesting because Republicans really laugh at themselves more. Like when Bush came on it was, “We want to do a skit. We’re kind of making fun”–“Yeah, go ahead.” And the skit was we were going, we were play “Jeopary!”, and we had Bush going, “What is this?” “What is that?” “What is this?” Like as if he didn’t know. And then it was course like “Jeopardy!” He was answering the questions like Alex Trebek. And we just walked up, “Can we do the sketch?” “Yeah, fine.”

We went up to Al Gore. We want to do this skit. Hang on. And there was a focus group and then media people came in. Where will Al be sitting? OK, now will Al have the punch–well, it’s just, we don’t have to do it. It’s, it’s not a big. And, you know, in the dressing room, Al Gore was very engaging and very funny and very loose.

GREGORY: Yeah. yeah.

LENO: But once the camera came on, oh, no.

GREGORY: But this is a key test. Will you go on “The Tonight Show” and let it rip if you’re a politician? Right? Isn’t that, I mean, it’s a test from their side of it.

LENO: Yeah. I mean, I mean, we, I remember we had John Kerry on and he came on on a motorcycle and had a beer, and it just seemed like we’re pushing a little too hard here. I mean, I like John Kerry, but I just felt like, really? He rode the bike on a ramp, you know, had the leather jacket. He’s a regular guy, by golly. You know? It was very funny.

The other thing that was interesting about this interview was that in the entire sixteen minutes, Barack Obama’s name was only mentioned once.

Gregory and Leno spent far more time chatting about the latter’s take on George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney.

The only mention of Obama was a very brief clip of a spoof video Leno’s team created of the current president singing Al Green’s “So In Love With You” to Dmitry Medvedev.

After the clip, Gregory asked, “Is he easy to make fun of, this president?”

Leno replied, “Well, Clinton and Bush was the golden age of comedy.”

And believe it or not, that was all Gregory and Leno had to say about Obama – roughly 30 seconds out of sixteen minutes.

Which validates Greg Gutfeld’s observation this week that “Asking a comedian to make fun of Obama is like asking a priest to mock Christ.”

Pretty sad.

I think it says something profound that priests ARE mocking Obama even as the comedians are worshiping Barry Hussein like Christ.

Obama Socialist Plans To ‘Make Government Cool Again’ Hits Slight Snag In Wake Of One Giant Pathetic Scandal After Another

Obama in 2008 telling us about the utopia he’s going to create for an America suddenly embracing the mantra “We Are All Socialists Now” to go along with “Yes we can!”

September 11, 2008
Obama plans to ‘make government cool again’
Ben Smith

Barack Obama addressed the wide distaste for government — and the fact that he and John McCain are running against Washington — at the forum on national service at Columbia University.

“Our campaign from the beginning has been about changing government,” he said, recalling some great accomplishments of American government: Civil rights legislation, the interstate highway system, and the National Park system.

Obama would, he said, “transform Washington” and “make government cool again.”

Obama also had some praise for small-town mayors — like, not so long ago, Sarah Palin — who, he said have “some of the toughest jobs in the country. We yak [in the Senate] but they…fill potholes and trim trees and make sure the garbage” is picked up.

Why was had there been such a “wide distaste for government”???  Because government taste like bovine fecal matter in giant quantities shoved down your throat.  And then you’re forced to pay for the meal at about a hundred times the price that the private sector would have charged for the dining privilege.  In a nutshell.

And, hey, Obama, boy have you ever changed government: you’ve made it bigger and more expensive and more “distasteful” than it has EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.  You set out to “fundamentally transform America,” and you’ve done it.  Good job.  Pat yourself on the back.  Smoke a cigarette.  Your work destroying America is nearly done.

The GSA scandal gives us more than massive waste and fraud; it gives us pictures and videos of big government union workers putting on clown suits and flipping off the taxpayers.  The Secret Service proves that even the most trusted workers in government have totally broken down under the Obama Culture.  And we’re supposed to want to “make government cool again” so we can force the American people to pay for more of the same???

Under Obama, “In Nothing We Trust.”  Under Obama, we’re looking at a scandal of massive green boondoggles of which Solyndra is just the tiny tip of a giant iceberg.  Under Obama, we’re watching the GSA scandal openly mock the taxpayers more and more.  Under Obama, we’re looking at pure evil with the Fast and Furious scandal in which Obama put weapons in the hands of drug cartel murderers and let them murder American citizens with them.  Under Obama, we’ve had example after example of the breakdown of the US military over which Obama is commander-in-chief.  And there are more of them coming out every day now, aren’t there?  Under Obama, things are getting beyond wicked.

But Obama wants more and more and more and bigger and bigger and bigger government that will seize and confiscate more and more and more of the smaller and smaller minority of Americans who actually pay any federal income taxes and pay for this ungodly monster.  Federal workers being paid more than $150,000 a year have DOUBLED under Obama.  And there’s plenty more where that came from.

Obama has massively increased the size of government even as he has gutted military spending:

I just got through writing about just a tiny fraction of all the Obama scandals that are going on right now.  The man is a firehose of pure evil and America is now flooded.