What Liberals Want For Your Child (To Die). As Evidenced By What Is Now Happening In England’s NHS Socialist Health Care System.

From the UK Daily Mail about the closest thing we’ve got to watching the true coming horror that is ObamaCare: Congratulations, liberals.  You’re as low as Nazis:

Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor’s haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan

• Practice of  withdrawing food and fluid by tube being used on young  patients
• Doctor  admits starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in neonatal  unit
• Liverpool  Care Pathway subject of independent inquiry ordered by  ministers
• Investigation, including child patients, will look at  whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced  doctors’ decisions

By Sue Reid and Simon Caldwell
PUBLISHED:18:03 EST, 28  November 2012| UPDATED:19:54 EST, 28 November 2012

Sick children are being discharged from NHS  hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death  pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool  Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill  adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of  withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as  severely disabled newborn babies.

Sick children and babies are being discharged from NHS  hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’ (file  photo)

One doctor has admitted starving and  dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician  revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a  baby  becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and  terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an  independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

More…

• Ministers  order an inquiry into the care pathway payments that saw hospitals receive  millions to implement controversial system
• Patient  killed in oxygen explosion as a second dies in broken lift: Damning dossier  reveals NHS failings that caused death
• Doctors  ‘are withholding treatment from dying cancer patients because they think it is  futile to continue’
• We  treat our hospital and care home patients with contempt and indifference, says  the Health Secretary

The investigation, which will include child  patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway  targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is  impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes  a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear  hospital beds and save the NHS money.

The practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is  being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies

The use of end of life care methods on  disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical  Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote  of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described  one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital  anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child  to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia.  They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious  baby.

According to a BMJ article, a doctor had presided over  ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal unit

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent  with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think;  reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration  to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for  the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical  appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn  babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal

‘I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of  witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life  that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their  baby.’

According to the BMJ article, the doctor  involved had presided over ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal  unit.

In a response to the article, Dr Laura de  Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London  writing on the BMJ website, said: ‘It is a huge supposition to think they do not  feel hunger or thirst.’

The LCP for children has been developed in  the North West, where the LCP itself was pioneered in the 1990s. It involves the  discharge to home or to a hospice of children who are given a document detailing  their ‘end of life’ care.

One seen by the Mail, called ‘Liverpool  Pathway for the Dying Child’ is issued by the Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS  Trust in conjunction with the flagship children’s hospital Alder Hey. It  includes tick boxes, filled out by hospital doctors, on medicines, nutrients and  fluids to be stopped.

The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie  Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more  than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with paediatric staff at Alder  Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on  the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best  interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse,  has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the  use of death pathways for children.

‘‘I have also seen children die in terrible  thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die’

She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a  very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom  they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult  to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after  being taken off the pathway.

‘I have also seen children die in terrible  thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.

‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer  die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give  him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to  watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

Alder Hey, pictured, confirmed that children and babies  are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes  for the patient’s condition are considered’

Alder Hey confirmed that children and babies  are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes  for the patient’s condition are considered’.

‘There is a care pathway to enable a dying  child to be supported by the local medical and nursing teams in the community,  in line with the wishes of the child patients, where appropriate, and always  their parents or carers.’ Alder Hey said children were not put on the LCP within  the hospital itself.

Teresa Lynch, of protest group Medical Ethics  Alliance, said: ‘There are big questions to be answered about how our sick  children are dying.’

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘End  of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical  standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.

‘Staff must always communicate with the  patient and the patient’s family, and involve them in all aspects of decision  making.’

THEY WISH FOR THEIR BABY TO GO  QUICKLY. BUT I KNOW, AS THEY CAN’T, THE UNIQUE HORROR OF WATCHING A CHILD SHRINK  AND DIE

Here  is an abridged version of one doctor’s anonymous testimony, published in the BMJ  under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn  babies’.

The voice on the other end of the phone  describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies.  I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.

The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they  feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I  know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.

Assuming this baby survives, we will be  unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to  do so.

Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I  realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I  have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.

A doctor has written a testimony published under the  heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’

The mother fidgets in her chair, unable to  make eye contact. She dabs at angry tears, stricken. In a soft voice the father  begins to tell me about their life, their other children, and their dashed hopes  for this child.

He speculates that the list of proposed  surgeries and treatments are unfair and will leave his baby facing a future too  full of uncertainty.

Like other parents in this predicament, they  are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never  have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and  fluids are stopped.

They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no  suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious  baby.

Their wishes, however, are not  consistent  with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most  physicians think;  reflecting on my previous patients, the median time  from withdrawal of  hydration to death was ten days.

Parents and care teams are unprepared for the  sometimes severe changes that  they will witness in the child’s physical  appearance as severe  dehydration ensues.

I  try to make these matters clear from the  outset so that these parents do not make a decision that they will come to  regret. I try to prepare  them for the coming collective agony that we will  undoubtedly share,  regardless of their certainty about their  decision.

I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of  witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life  that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their  baby.

I reflect on how sanitised this experience  seems within the literature about making this decision.

As a doctor, I struggle with the emotional  burden of accompanying the patient and his or her family through this  experience, as much as with the philosophical details of it.

‘Survival is often much longer than most  physicians  think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time  from withdrawal of  hydration to death was ten days’

Debate at the front lines of healthcare about  the morality of taking this decision has remained heated, regardless of what  ethical and legal guidelines have to offer.

The parents come to feel that the disaster of  their situation is intolerable; they can no longer bear witness to the slow  demise of their child.

This increases the burden on the care-givers,  without parents at the bedside to direct their child’s care.

Despite involvement from the clinical ethics  and spiritual care services, the vacuum of direction leads to divisions within  the care team.

It is draining to be the most responsible  physician. Everyone is looking to me to preside over and support this process.

I am honest with the nurse when I say it is  getting more and more difficult to make my legs walk me on to this unit as the  days elapse, that examining the baby is an indescribable mixture of compassion,  revulsion, and pain.

Some say withdrawing medically provided  hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support.  Maybe, but that is not how it feels. The one thing that helps me a little is the  realisation that this process is necessarily difficult. It needs to be.

To acknowledge that a child’s prospects are  so dire, so limited, that we will not or cannot provide artificial nutrition is  self selecting for the rarity of the situations in which parents and care teams  would ever consider it.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DdeVXdSm Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In the coming hell otherwise known as ObamaCare, patients will have a choice of receiving abuse, cruelty and neglect or simply being “humanely” euthanized.

‘Separation Of Church And State’:The Theory That Government Should Grow Larger And More Powerful And Religion Should Grow Smaller And More Marginalized

Those who claim that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is in the Constitution are frauds.  It is NOT.  The concept existed in a private letter written by a man who did not write so much as a single word of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which followed the Constitution.  Oh, and Jefferson’s intent in using the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was wildly taken out of context and applied in a manner in which Jefferson is even now rolling in his grave (and see here).

What is the clear result of this doctrine?  It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

Another great authority, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that there ought to be a wall of separation between LABOR UNIONS and the state:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered.  I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers.  Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point.  In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while.  Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

A nation in which there was a rigid separation of labor unions from government would be a far better and stronger one than the one that we have now which wars against and undermines the influence of religion.  And I say that conclusively based on the clear words of our founding fathers that the liberal justices of the Supreme Court chose to deliberately and studiously ignore while instead choosing a few words radically out of context to hamstring the free exercise of religion.

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

I would argue it’s a damn shame that liberal justices seized Jefferson’s “wall of separation” line while refusing to acknowledge what Thomas Jefferson said about THEM and their fascist abuse of judical-tyrant power:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place.  And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

Which is why the beast is coming.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Why that title?  Because we’re going to take a “midlevel” approach to explore the Book of Revelation.  Obviously, we could easily spend a year or MORE in this book, couldn’t we?  For example, I have a two-volume commentary on Revelation by Robert Thomas that totals well over a thousand pages!  That’s too low or detailed a level for the type of discussion we can have.  Or we could fly over Revelation in one article at a really high level and try to provide a summary of the Book in one hour of Sunday School.  What we’re going to do is take a plane ride over Revelation and fly over it at a mid-level altitude that will let us get the gist of about two chapters a week on average.

With that in mind, here are a few “nutshell descriptions” of the Book of Revelation.  Here are the one-sentence summaries of Revelation from a couple of pastors I know well:

A fun exercise, approached it from several angles, and settled on this version:

“Jesus pulls back the curtain of time to give us a preview of the final chapters of this world’s drama and give us a glimpse into the world to come.”

Another pastor and I put our heads together to come up with this one:

“Revelation is a message of hope to God’s people as they struggle against evil.”

I tried to be as descriptive as I could in my sentence:

Sinful man will progressively shake his fist at Jesus Christ until evil appears to take over the whole world, but God will ultimately end the problem of evil once for all and provide an eternity of shalom for His people through the King of kings and Lord of lords.

I believe that’s a worthy exercise for any book or passage you study: can you sum up the point/message in a big-idea sentence?  You are forced to stop and ask yourself: what is the point of what I’ve read?

If you want to go even further and offer a two-word description of what Revelation is about those two words are “Jesus Christ,” NOT “the future.”  Is the future important in Revelation?  Of course.  But in Revelation we find out what Jesus DID, we find out what He’s GOING to do and we find out that He is King of kings and Lord of lords who will reign over the Universe surrounded by His people forever.  And the beauty of the Book of Revelation is that it was written so that St. John’s first reader of Revelation could get that about Christ.  And someone a thousand years ago could get it.  And we can get it today.  They wouldn’t understand all the “future stuff” that was divinely intended for a future day; but they would understand the main idea of the Book of Revelation: One day King Jesus will kick the devil’s butt and throw him along with the world’s worst human dictator into hell, and then it will all be a forever of good times for Jesus’ disciples.

Moving on: how many of you have heard the term “newspaper prophecy”?  What does that phrase say to you?  Do you think it is intended as a positive or a negative description of literal interpretation of biblical prophecy?  It’s usually been used as an insult to deride those who see the last days picture falling into place.  On the view of this attack, people like me take whatever headline is in the news at the moment and twist the Bible prophecy to fit that headline.  And such people will point to periods when many in a generation believed the world was in the last days when it really wasn’t – particularly the periods around WWI/WWII.

Here’s my response to that: Take WWII.  You can see why some people may have believed that we were in the last days: we had a figure – Adolf Hitler – who very definitely seemed “Antichrist-like.”  You had the entire world locked in a terrible war that resulted in the deaths of more than 60 million people.  But while there were many things that might make the late 1930s and the early 1940s seem like a candidate for the Tribulation, one thing was missing that those who favor a literal interpretation said HAD to happen according to the Bible.  What was that one thing?  THE EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL.  Just as one example, Daniel 12:11, 11:31-37 and 9:27 say that the Antichrist will set up an abomination that causes desolation in the last days during the Tribulation.  That is a major event in Bible prophecy.  Jesus in Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 tells us this was still an event to happen in the future.  2 Thess 2:3-4 says that Antichrist will set himself up in God’s Temple and declare himself to be God.  Which temple would that be in?  There is only one possible candidate.  When Daniel referred to the temple, it could be none other than the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.  Revelation chapter 11 is a prophetic account that that Temple will one day be built again.  And this is just one of many, MANY ways that a literal interpretation of Revelation would lead us to definitively state that no state of Israel, no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.  The state of Israel as prophesied in Ezekiel simply has to exist for the events prophesied in the last days to occur.   And so an informed student of Bible prophecy could know for certain in 1939 that whatever would happen was not yet the Tribulation.

And so the accusation of “newspaper prophecy” massively fails.  Because the people accused of perverting Bible prophecy to suit the newspaper are the very same people who were boldly and confidently predicting that the state of Israel would rise for centuries before it actually happened.  As an example, Charles Nelson Darby was claiming back in 1819 in writing that if his dispensationalism was correct, the state of Israel would have to be reborn.  And had we been relying on our newspapers prior to 1948, as critics falsely claim we do, we would have agreed with said critics and pronounced that Israel had been expunged from the pages of anything but ancient history and that the rebirth of the state of Israel could never have happened.  And in fact on THAT most significant ground of the rebirth of the nation Israel exactly as we rightly claimed the Bible prophesied, it is in in fact our critics who looked at their newspapers beginning some 1600 years ago (Augustine appx. 398 AD) and wrongly concluded that Israel was obliterated forever and therefore out of God’s prophetic plan.  It was the amillennialists who in fact were the ones who engaged in “newspaper prophecy” in that most pejorative sense.

And while the folks like Hal Lindsey who are demagogued as “newspaper prophets” at least adjust their speculations to accommodate new developments, the amillennialists, postmillennialists, etc. never bothered to adjust THEIR “newspaper theology” to the REALITY that the state of Israel – in direct fulfillment of God’s Word – had come into existence precisely as the premillennialists/dispensationalists they mocked had said would happen.  Israel stands as a refutation of these theological systems that attempted to “replace” a national Israel that should NEVER have been “replaced” to begin with.

I’ve written articles that describe some of the key differences between amillennialism, postmillennialism and premillenialism/dispensationalism.  If these terms confuse you, read up on them.

That said, the Book of Revelation ultimately WILL be “newspaper prophecy.”  Because when the events described in Revelation are ultimately fulfilled, a good newspaper will report the events as they unfold and intelligent readers will say, “That’s what the Bible said would happen!”  That’s because when Revelation is fulfilled (as it will be), it will very much happen in real time for real people to really witness.  And the newspapers of record in that soon-approaching day will report the modern news version of what was revealed to John in 96 AD.  Which is to say that there truly is coming a time when one can look at the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other and rightly end up with “newspaper prophecy,” isn’t there?

I previously mentioned the Book of Daniel.  Here’s a question: of the 404 verses in the Book of Revelation, how many of them do you think allude to the Old Testament?  And the answer is 278 or 69%.  That’s a lot of Old Testament!  So here’s another bone to chew on: a lot of people say (complain, really) that no one can understand the Book of Revelation because of all the symbolism.  Here’s where that falls apart: A GREAT DEAL OF THE SYMBOLISM IS SYMBOLISM RELATING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND WE SAW HOW THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS LITERALLY FULFILLED IN HISTORY.  As an example, take the over 400 prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament.  We saw that literally HAPPEN, right?  And it turns out that these O.T. prophecies were fulfilled LITERALLY, right?  My point is that where there is symbolism, you can very often take that symbolism, see what it ties into from the O.T., and then see how that O.T. symbolism was fulfilled.  The symbolism of Revelation was in many cases already explained to us before, in other words, and all we have to do is apply the fulfilled O.T. symbolism to the symbolism we need to understand in the Book of Revelation.

Question: “What do the seven churches in Revelation stand for?”  The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches that all existed at the time that John the apostle was writing Revelation. But even though they were real, actual churches in that time, there is also a larger spiritual significance for churches and believers today. John’s first purpose of the letters was to communicate with the literal churches and meet their needs at that time. The second purpose is to reveal seven different types of individuals/churches throughout history and instruct them in God’s truth and His expectation of them.

A possible third purpose is to use the seven churches to foreshadow seven different periods in the history of the Church. The problem with this view is that each of the seven churches describes issues that could fit the Church in any time in its history. And for those who would say that Laodicea is the final age, well, we’ve already got Bible passages that tell us that there will be a falling away in the last days (Ex 2 Tim 3:1-5; 4:2-3), don’t we?  So, although there may be some truth to the seven churches representing seven eras, there is far too much speculation in this regard. Our focus should be on what message God is giving us through the seven churches. The seven churches are:

(1) Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) – the loyal, persevering, enduring church that had left its first love (2:4).

(2) Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11) – the persecuted church that would be rewarded for its faithful suffering (2:10).

(3) Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) – the formerly faithful church that needed to repent because it had embraced false teachings (2:16).

(4) Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29) – the active, serving church that became too cozy with a false world system (2:20).

(5) Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6) – the church of incomplete deeds that had fallen asleep and needs to spiritually wake up (3:2).

(6) Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13) – the small, patient, persevering church that is urged to hold fast and promised to be kept from the time of testing (3:10).

(7) Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) – the useless, gutless church with the lukewarm faith (3:16).

Jesus begins speaking to His Churches because He tells us what’s coming and asks us, “Are you ready?”

Tune in next week.  I will be going through the entire Book of Revelation taking about two chapters per session.  Revelation is the ONLY Book in the Bible that promises a special blessing to those who read it (Rev 1:3), but many don’t bother to study it because they have been told that it is so difficult.  It isn’t all that difficult if you read it with a literal hermeneutic principle and simply accept the story as it is being told.  And in fact the only reason it is so incredibly “difficult” is because the amillennialism/postmillennialist approaches have so wrapped the Book up in allegory that it “literally” doesn’t say what it in fact rather clearly says.

Part Two: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Part Four: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Part Nine: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

Part Ten: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22

For The Factual Historical Record: Democrats Pushing To Take America Off Fiscal Cliff (Which Won’t Stop Democrats From Falsely Blaming GOP)

This fiscal cliff talk is rather interesting to me now that I have a more detached perspective.

I truly believe America is going to collapse now.  I also truly believe that by the time the Republicans get another chance to sweep into power in 2014 (as they did in 2010) it will be far too little and far too late.  I think Americans voted this month to die by national suicide.  And, yeah, I think it serves us right if we implode.  That said, I happen to live here.  My family lives here.  We’ve got children to think about.  I don’t want to suffer and I don’t want any of my family to suffer.  So I’m in that position of believing something is going to happen and that we deserve to have it happen on the one hand, with the realization that not only I but my family will be harmed when it does happen.

The result?  I’m no longer praying for America, or for the wisdom of our leaders or for the wisdom of the American people.  They were fools when it mattered most and I realize they will continue to be fools as it matters most.  At the same time, I’m certainly not praying or hoping for a fiscal implosion that will send America reeling into a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a lovely walk on a sunny beach.  I’m someone who views this as an outsider; I live here, but it has nothing to do with me.  And I’m focusing on claiming my citizenship in heaven more and worrying about my citizenship in America less.

I’m not overly exited about it or overly worried about it.  I already know that Americans have reached that depraved condition in which they demand to be parasites off of someone else’s success until there are no more hosts to parasitically leach off of while borrowing half of everything they recklessly spend until we collapse and the beast comes.

It’s really more an interesting academic question: what precisely will be the mechanism by which the Antichrist comes and Democrats worship him and take his mark?  What will be that final card that gets pulled from the house of cards we call our economy that will send the entire system down the drain so the beast can come riding in on his white horse – as he is depicted in Revelation chapter 6 – to save the day?

But I have seen so many naked lies pass for truth, and I’m at least going to try to document some of those lies at the moment when it matters.

Such as this one: Democrats – that’s right, DEMOCRATS – have been calling for us to go off the fiscal cliff if they don’t get exactly what they want.  And Republicans – that’s right, REPUBLICANS – are shocked by the callous willingness of the Democrat Party to allow implosion and the suffering that will result from that implosion.

From the überliberal Washington Post:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery,
Jul 16, 2012 01:00 AM EDT

Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Emboldened by signs that GOP resistance to new taxes may be weakening, senior Democrats say they are prepared to weather a fiscal event that could plunge the nation back into recession if the new year arrives without an acceptable compromise.

In a speech Monday, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat and the leader of the caucus’s campaign arm, plans to make the clearest case yet for going over what some have called the “fiscal cliff.”

“If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,” Murray plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.

READ: Everything you need to know about the fiscal cliff

If the tax cuts from the George W. Bush era expire and taxes go up for everyone, the debate will be reset, Murray is expected to say. “Every proposal will be a tax-cut proposal,” according to the excerpts, and Republicans would no longer be “boxed in” by their pledge not to raise taxes.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year, are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich? Are they going to continue opposing the Democrats’ middle-class tax cut once the slate has been wiped clean? I think they know this would be an untenable political position.”

Murray’s address, set to be delivered at the Brookings Institution, is meant to influence both the Nov. 6 election and the lame-duck legislative session in November and December, when the fiscal cliff will be at hand and the fight over taxes will be in full throttle. Regardless of the election’s outcome, President Obama and the current Congress will be in office for the session.

The speech comes less than a week after Obama assured Hill Democrats during a White House meeting that he would veto any attempt to maintain the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year, according to several people present. It also echoes the dismissive response by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to Republicans seeking to undo scheduled reductions in Pentagon spending that even Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said would be “devastating” to national security.

During the White House meeting, Obama never directly addressed whether he is prepared to let the new year arrive without taking action to avoid the cliff. According to the excerpts, Murray will say Monday that she hopes an agreement can be reached before then: “Democrats are willing to compromise. We just need a partner.”

Still, Democratic lawmakers emerged from the meeting invigorated for the year-end battle to preserve the Bush tax cuts solely for the middle class.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has lambasted the Democrats’ position as an “outrageous ultimatum.”

“At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest recovery in modern times . . . and just five months away from the economic body blow that will result if tax rates spike, as scheduled, on January 1st, the president’s solution is to take more money away from the very business folks we are counting on to create the jobs that we need,” McConnell said in a speech Thursday on the Senate floor. “Naturally, Republicans oppose this. The way we see it, nobody should see an income tax hike right now.”

A risky strategy

The term “fiscal cliff” refers to the sharp drop in the 2013 budget deficit that would result from policies in current law. Thanks to a deal Obama cut with Republicans in 2010, the Bush tax cuts — and dozens of other tax provisions — are set to expire in December, raising taxes for virtually every U.S. household next year.

Meanwhile, during the debt-limit showdown last summer, lawmakers approved a plan to implement $110 billion in automatic spending cuts next year. A legislative “supercommittee” appointed to find an alternative deficit-reduction strategy disbanded without reaching agreement.

Republicans say Democrats are responsible for the impasse, noting that GOP members on the supercommittee offered to raise revenue through an overhaul of the tax code.

“We were on the record saying we would agree to a conventionally scored tax increase if they would clear out the tax code, make it fairer, flatter and simpler and begin to take us off the road to bankruptcy on entitlements. And they weren’t willing to do it,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), the GOP supercommittee chairman.

[…]

Here is a link from the Fox News article: “Democrats Willing to Let Country Fall Off ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Over Bush-era Tax Cuts“:

Senate Democrats appear willing to use your paycheck to play political hardball on taxes unless Republicans agree to President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

A top Senate Democrat warned Monday that, if Republicans don’t relent, her caucus is willing to let all the Bush-era tax rates expire at the end of the year — in effect threatening to let the country fall off what many in Washington call the “fiscal cliff.”

That cliff is approaching at the start of 2013, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and billions of dollars in automatic spending cuts — spawned by last summer’s debt-ceiling debate — are set to take effect. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are hoping to shift around those spending cuts to spare key areas like defense, and to temporarily extend the Bush tax rates for at least some Americans. Some have warned a failure to do so could send the nation back into recession.

But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., indicated Democrats are willing to let the deadline pass in order to better their negotiating position.

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” she said in prepared remarks for a speech she plans to give Monday afternoon at the Brookings Institution. Murray is head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the campaign arm for Senate Democrats.

[…]

Which party has clearly offered compromises?  The Republican Party, which has repeatedly said at the very highest levels (including at the level of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during his campaign along with John Boehner and the entire Republican leadership) to allow tax revenue increases by ending many tax loopholes that favor the rich or simply by capping the exemptions at a certain dollar level such as $50,000.  This would raise nearly as much revenue as what Obama called for.

What has Obama offered by way of “compromise”?  Well, he is now demanding DOUBLE what he demanded the last time.  His starting position was to hike taxes on the rich whose investment and job creation is vital to economic growth, and his current position hasn’t changed so much as a tiny smidge.

Somehow, in this age when we are getting ready to worship the Antichrist and take his mark on our right hands or our foreheads if we want to participate in the economy in any way, shape or form, that’s “compromise.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans – who have now offered massive compromise – are “obstructionists.”  Because in this age right before the beast comes not going along with absolutely EVERYTHING the liberals want is “obstructionism.”

“Balance” is letting the Democrats have everything they demand.  “Balance” is threatening economic terrorism and blowing up America if they DON’T get absolutely everything they demand.

My goal was to document this reality.

Because if we go off the cliff, it is a documented historical fact that one party and only one party publicly advocated for going off the fiscal cliff.  And that is the Democrat Party.

When we collapse – notice I don’t say “if” – it will be because of reckless Democrat spending that everybody with a soul knew was utterly unsustainable.  It will be because the Democrats figured out how to successfully demagogue the lowest and basest nature of the American people.  It will be because Democrats have successfully baited and switched the American Dream of becoming independently successful with the Marxist Dream of government redistributionism.  It will be because we turned out backs once and for all time on the notion that we grow when we provide incentives for people to work harder and to invest more and to take more risks and instead punished the people who work harder and invest more and take more risks.  All that said, I believe that Democrats will be successful again: when the system crashes Democrats will exploit that collapse THAT THEY CAUSED to take complete control of the government.  Because hungry, terrified people – particularly given the fact that they are bad people – will demand the government step in to help them.  And that will be the moment that America fulfills the dreams of socialists ever since Karl Marx by truly officially embracing socialism.

It’s all so close now.  And it will take so little to trigger the coming collapse.

Update, 11/27:

And guess what?  Now EVEN MORE DEMOCRATS ARE WILLING TO THROW AMERICA INTO A DEPRESSION TO DEMONIZE THEIR WAY INTO GETTING WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT:

More Democrats Willing to Go Over ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Monday, 26 Nov 2012 04:21 PM By Stephen Feller

A growing number of Democrats say they are willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if a deal cannot be reached by Jan. 1 that raises taxes on the top two percent of earners while protecting costly entitlement programs.

Their theory in this game of chicken with Republicans is that it will be easier in January to lower taxes for 98 percent of the country while finding the best possible parts of the federal budget to cut — in line with long-held goals of the nation’s liberal party. They also think they’ll be in a better position to save most, if not all, of massive entitlements like Medicare as well as pet projects.

The fiscal cliff, originally created to force a legislatively-appointed supercommittee to make significant cuts to the federal budget, is roughly $500 billion mix of budget cuts and tax increases.

It includes the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and Obama-era payroll tax cut, massive cuts to the military and jobless benefits, and a decrease in Medicare reimbursement rates.

This will send tax on bond interest to 44.6 percent from 35 percent; on capital gains to 25 percent from 15 percent and on dividends to 44.6 percent from 15 percent, Forbes magazine pointed out Monday.

The average family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in income taxes if Congress fails to reach an agreement before the Bush tax cuts expire on Jan. 1, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The economy would shrink by 0.5 percent, the CBO has found.

Experts have consistently predicted that the overall economy would take a massive hit if the country goes over the cliff, likely sending it into recession. Still, since July, Democrats increasingly have made the case that it wouldn’t be so bad.

Led by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Democrats have pushed the idea that the cliff is not as bad as the hype, with it being more of a “slope” than a “cliff.”

Pentagon cuts, they say, would be phased in, and the tax hikes, including the payroll hike, could also be slowed. If this happens, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there would be a few weeks at the beginning of 2013 for a deal to quickly be reached.

Sen. Charles Schumer backs Murray, also saying that Democrats can’t cave in. He and other Democrats believe that Obama won a mandate for increased taxes with the presidential election.

“[President Obama] campaigned on it clearly,” the veteran New York Democrat said on “Meet the Press.” “He didn’t back off it.”

Also weighing in on Monday in a New York Times Op-Ed was billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said he think the country will be just fine going over the fiscal cliff.

While it’s not ideal, the founder of Berkshire Hathaway thinks that Obama must be willing to keep pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy, even if it triggers the automatic onset of tax increases and spending cuts on Jan.1.

The U.S. economy, he said, can weather it for a month or two. “We’re not going to permanently cripple ourselves,” Buffett told CNN last week.

Buffett shrugged off the Congressional Budget Office’s warnings that failure to address the fiscal cliff by Dec. 31 could lead to a recession.

“We have a very resilient economy,” said Buffett, a long-time Democrat and staunch Obama supporter. “The fact that [lawmakers] can’t get along for the month of January is not going to torpedo the economy.”

But even as some Republicans waver on taxes, others have renewed the call for no tax hikes.

“A tax increase never created a new job in this country,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It doesn’t make any sense to us to raise taxes on job creators in this time of economic challenge.”

And House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said raising tax rates will stymie job creation. But he also said he is willing to raise revenue through tax reform and by eliminating “loopholes” in the tax code.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has not said whether he would vote for tax increases.

“A lot has been said about this pledge,” Cantor said on MSNBC Monday morning, referring to the popular no-tax pledge pushed by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

“I will tell you when I go to the constituents that re-elected me, it is not about that pledge, it really is about trying to solve problems,” Cantor said. “And as we know, this election we just went through is very much about, number one, what are we going to do to reclaim a momentum in this economy? How do we get us back to that? And, two, how do you solve a problem?”

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, echoed Cantor, saying in an interview that reforming the outdated tax code could stir up new revenues without raising tax rates.

“We need to create growth, which creates jobs, not damaging growth by huge tax increases,” Sessions told Fox News.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday shows a solid majority of respondents — two-thirds — supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Of that total, Republicans favor such an approach by 52 to 44 percent.

Even if effects of the cliff felt by Americans could be held off temporarily, the markets may not fare so well.

“Markets are going to go into an absolute tailspin, and I don’t think we want to risk that, especially with leadership right now trying to find a deal,” said Gabriel Horwitz, director of the economic program for Third Way, a centrist think tank. “I think the market reaction is going to happen immediately.”

“Rather than stop the country from going over the fiscal cliff and preventing the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, they are prepared to Thelma-and-Louise the American economy right over the cliff,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee. “That is an astonishing admission.”

William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told CNN that Murray’s form of brinksmanshipis best avoided.

“To be sure, no one believes that non-agreement by December 31 would be the end of the story. After a period of finger-pointing, discussions would resume,” Galston wrote last week in a New Republic opinion piece. “But equally, no one knows how the failure to reach agreement before the end of 2012 would affect the dynamics of the negotiations.”

In addition, “we can be reasonably sure … that national and global markets would react adversely and that businesses, which are already retreating from planned investments in new plant and equipment, would become even more uncertain and risk-averse.”

Murray said in July, and again after the election in November, that without increasing taxes for some Americans, Democrats would balk at any deal Republicans propose.

By waiting until January to cut taxes for the bottom 98 percent, rather than increasing taxes for the top two percent, it may be easier for Republicans to support the concept – based on timing and semantics, Murray and other Democrats seem to think.

“We can’t accept an unfair deal that piles all of this on the middle class and tells them they have to support it,” Murray said on ABC in November. “We have to make sure that the wealthiest of Americans pay their fair share. If Republicans, many of whom were elected after campaigning against tax hikes, won’t agree, Democrats shouldn’t blink… We’ll start over next year and whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this.”

While many Republicans are now saying that they’d be willing to violate Norquist’s pledge under the right circumstances, removing the spectre of actually voting to raise taxes would make it easier for them, she surmises.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said on ABC this Sunday that the pledge was not his major concern, as long as Democrats offer cuts to entitlements and other drains on the budget alongside the tax hikes.

“I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform,” Graham said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told ABC that it’s not her “role to go to the table with a threat… I think it’s my role to go to the table with some ideas, to be receptive to what we can come to agreement on.”

However not all Democrats agree that the threat of going over the cliff should not exist.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, have circulated a letter demanding that Obama start negotiations at a 1-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases, putting them in line with many in the party who want to see a harder line taken by Democrats.

Increasing federal revenue is the most important part of any negotiation, and though a deal before reaching the cliff is ideal, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., joined many others in his party and said waiting until January may be the best option.

“If the Republicans can’t see their way to significant additional revenues targeted toward the people who are best off and targeted toward passive income and other things like that, then we’re better off going over the cliff and readdressing this with a better Congress in January,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. “And we would have plenty of time to fix it.”

.

 

Race Is Rising Against Race Just As Jesus Said It Would In These Last Days. Democrats Say ‘Amen’ Unable To See That Jesus Said It As A BAD Thing.

Jesus’ warning in Luke 21:10 in its original Greek:

Τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ’ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν

It’s that word “ἔθνος” that stands out.  The direct English translation is “ethnic group” or “race”: race shall rise against race and kingdom against kingdom.

You can see this race hatred developing all over the world; surely the Holocaust of the Jews in the 1940s was a form of “race rising against race.”  During the Clinton years we saw two incredibly ugly examples: in Bosnia with its “ethnic cleansing” and of course in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa as the Hutu race murdered some 1 million Tutsis in an ogre of blood and violence.  We know that through the 1980s and 1990s Saddam Hussein was using genocide against the Kurds.  God only knows how many have perished in Darfur.  And we see it today all across the world in example after example.

It’s always easier to see these genocides in hindsight because the international community always throws a smokescreen over genocides while they are being committed.  As an example in Rwanda, the United Nations tortured the English language to avoid using the term “genocide” no matter how obviously genocidal the murder campaign was.  Why?  Because if the U.N. had used the word “genocide” it would have been compelled by its charter to involve itself.  And they wanted to stay as far away from actually DOING anything as they possibly could.  Because the United Nations has degenerated into a force for evil rather than a force for good in the world.

But I don’t want to talk about race rising against race in the world.  I want to talk about what is going on in America.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we had this description of Obama’s promise from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

I cited that back in 2009 when I was pointing out THE BRUTE FACT that Barack Obama was a cynical liar and demagogue right from the very start of his presidency.

As I document, Obama never once EVER tried to live up to his cynical lies.  He never tried to reach out or reconcile and he certainly never made any successful attempt to EVER accomplish any bipartisan legislation.  Rather, he demagogued and demonized and slandered his opponents.

Obama raged to an audience of Hispanics that they should “punish your enemies” – referring to white people and Republicans.  Because that’s the way Obama views the world.

During the campaign Obama sent his vice president out to threaten blacks that if they didn’t vote for him Mitt Romney and Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.”

Obama’s successful message: race, race race.  Rise up.  Punish your enemies.  And if you DON’T vote race white people will put you back in the chains of slavery.

Many have pointed out that Obama had a unique opportunity after his election in 2008 to actually try to do what he promised.  But he never once so much as TRIED.  And many have said that Obama would have an opportunity now to soften his race-baiting, class-warfare, war against women, fearmongering style of endless campaigning in the name of governance.  But you can already pretty clearly see that he won’t do any such thing any more than he did after falsely promising it in 2008.

What we’re seeing used against critics of UN Ambassador Susan Rice – who went on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly said something that was obviously factually untrue the day she said it – is telling:

As Republicans criticize U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, some members of Congress are suggesting that racism and sexism may be behind the attack.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Point on Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.

“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

A Republican was the first to appoint African-Americans to the office of secretary of State — the highest-ranking appointed position in a presidential administration. President George W. Bush named Colin Powell to the job, followed by Condoleezza Rice.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have attacked Rice in recent weeks for her Sunday show appearances in the days  following the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans,  criticizing her for not going further to label the assault a terrorist act. On Monday, 97 House  Republicans sent a letter to President Obama saying that Rice is unfit to  succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The administration has said that Rice was simply using talking points supplied by the intelligence community during her television appearances.

Last week, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the new chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also suggested that the attacks on Rice go beyond her job performance.

“It is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. I have a real issue with that,” Fudge said. “For you who are haters, as the young people say, your hate is going nowhere. Just go on and hate on, but look in the mirror and hate yourself, not the people that do this work.”

I want you to notice that Republicans were IMMEDIATELY FULLY AWARE that what Susan Rice said was simply factually untrue.  I certainly was – as I documented by the link to my own article above.  But a lie was her line and it was Obama’s line.  It was already obvious that she was saying things that were lies the moment she said them.  Conservatives erupted the very moment she spoke and they were right and she and those who took the Obama position were wrong.

We now know that the CIA issued a report IMMEDIATELY that documented that what Susan Rice would come out days later was a lie.  And we know that some Obama-appointed political operative altered that report in order to perpetuate the lie that Obama had killed bin Laden and by extension had therefore mortally wounded al Qaeda so he could get reelected.

We know that Susan Rice participated in that lie.  If she willingly participated, she is morally unfit for ANY job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.  If she unwillingly was duped, then we can similarly know that her judgment is so piss poor that she is unqualified for any job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.

But Obama and his thugs have a “narrative”: if you criticize a black person for any reason under the sun, YOU ARE A RACIST.  If you criticize a woman for any reason under the sun, no matter how much documentation you have to support your criticism, you are a misogynist.  And of course if said woman happens to be black, you are a racist misogynist, aren’t you?  And it frankly doesn’t matter that the last Republicans to hold executive power appointed the first black person to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State and the first black woman as the Secretary of State.  And it frankly doesn’t matter how many black people Republicans appoint; they will ALWAYS be racist by definition because Obama WANTS them to be racist by definition and that is how he operates through his race-baiting thugs.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Barack Obama and James Clyburn have Martin Luther King’s words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” embossed in gold lettering on their urinals.  Because they piss on those words every single day.

It is impossible to offer any criticism of the content of a black person’s character today.  Why?  Because of the color of their skin.  THAT’S all that matters to the Obamas and the Clyburns of the world and the content of character be damned.

Obama won politically with that garbage, just as the Antichrist will win politically one day very soon and just as Adolf Hitler won politically.  Like Obama in the present, the Antichrist of the future and the Hitler of the past win politically because they were skilled at exploiting lies and concealing truth.

We’re going to see America collapse.  We’re going to see that within a very few years from now.  And we will immediately see racial violence in the streets of America unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  Why will that happen?  because black people will believe Obama’s lies that they must “punish their enemies” lest said “enemies” put them back in chains; and because whites will realize that neither right nor reason have anything to do with political debate anymore, and they must fight and kill to save the lives of their children.  And if they depend on reason they will be destroyed by rhetoric in a world that is very clearly dead-set on worshiping the coming beast.

Jesus’ last days prophecy is going to come to pass.  Just as Jesus said.  And all you have to do is see the rhetoric that is being applied today to understand how America will melt down tomorrow.

The beast is coming.

What I want you to be able to understand is that the very-soon-to-be-history presented in Bible prophecy is directly related to what we are shaping TODAY.  The leader that the American people have chosen is sowing the wind and he will reap the whirlwind to the mass suffering of the people who put him in power.

How The Tribulation Begins, And How What You’re Watching On Your TV As We Speak Will Help Bring It To Pass

How does the Tribulation begin?  I was surprised to hear a pretty well-informed Christian answer that question by saying, “with the Rapture.”

Nope.

The Bible is very clear: the Tribulation officially kicks off when Israel signs a seven-year peace treaty with the Antichrist.

I see a lot of things very clearly now.  The world wants the beast to come much the way that I long for Messiah Jesus to come.  The world is pushing and pressing and manipulating and demagoguging and slandering as much as it can to prepare the way for the false messiah who will lead them to the ideological future of their dreams.

They don’t realize that the invariable result of the political and economic future they dream of is the closes thing one can get to literal hell on earth.  That is because “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t
believe” (2 Corinthians 4:4).  Reason is becoming increasingly possible because the truth is foolishness to the unbelieving mind (1 Corinthians 1:18).  “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” God has told us in Romans 1:22.  And God has begun to fulfill His Word that “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent” (1 Corinthians 1:19).

Human beings have been tainted and perverted by sin.  The Scriptures tell us that over and over again.  All kinds of evidences and experiments show that human senses do NOT necessarily lead us to truth.  And that truth is even more true when it comes to the ideas of our minds.  All of the many “-isms,” such as Marxism or communism or socialism or fascism or existentialism or nihilism or pretty much whatever “-ism” you want to name, not only do not bring you to truth, and not only take you further away from the truth, but literally anesthetize and even inoculate us from being able to possibly see the world as it really is.

Do you want to know how we can see reality as it really, truly is?  We endeavor to see it as God sees it.  And we can do that by reading God’s Word and reshaping and reordering our minds to align with the Kingdom of God rather than the sinful nature of man.  When you look at the world through the lens or prism of Scripture, then and then alone can you begin to see reality as it truly is.

But secular humanists will not do that.  They will do ANYTHING but that, in fact.  They will NOT see the world the way the God who created it sees it.  They do not want to see God and they do not want to see reality the way God sees it.  Rather, they believe that the can create their OWN reality and replace our reality with the one that they have fabricated through their theories and their narratives.  The result is something that I have said many times on this blog: the secular humanist left have become the stupidest people on the face of the earth through sheer brute force of their wills.  They WILL NOT see, accept, or understand the real world; rather, they are as determined as their ultimate master, Satan, to impose their own reality by whatever means seem to work for them.

They will not see that the very actions they take to fabricate their Utopia (ignoring the brute fact of history that EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST UTOPIA HAS GONE WILDLY WRONG) will cause the hell on earth that the Bible warned us of – as epitomized in “the people’s” upcoming decision to elect the Antichrist as their world leader.

Hal Lindsey put it this way back in 1973:

It’s once again very important for us to realize that the Book of Revelation is John’s firsthand account of what he saw and experienced when he was taken up into heaven.  How difficult it must have been for him with his first-century orientation to find adequate descriptive words to verbalize the incredible things he viewed!  Even fifty years ago the things described in the Book of Revelation were so far beyond our comprehension that no one dreamed they could happen apart from some supernatural assistance.

Now such things as John described are not only possible, but could happen within thirty minutes!  There are already enough nuclear-tipped missiles on station and ready for launching to do everything predicted in this chapter [chapter 8 of Revelation].  Dr. W.H. Pickering of Cal Tech confirmed this when he warned, “In half an hour the East and the West could destroy civilization.”

Although it is possible for God to supernaturally pull off every miracle in the Book of Revelation and use totally unheard-of means to do it, I personally believe that all the enormous ecological catastrophes described in this chapter are the direct result of nuclear weapons.  In actuality, man inflicts these judgments on himself.  God simply steps back and removes His restraining influence from man, allowing him to do what comes naturally out of his sinful nature.  In fact, if the Book of Revelation had never been written, we might well predict these very catastrophes within fifty years or less!  — Hal Lindsey, There’s A New World Coming, pp. 114-115

Man does this to himself.  Man chooses it.  Man does it.  Man votes for it.  Man elects it.  And we even find that: man cheers for it and even that man worships it.

The official kick-off to the Tribulation is Israel signing a covenant with the Antichrist.  And man will very much push Israel into that step.

The past 64 years, since Israel became a nation, Israel has had one or two allies with the rest of the world increasingly isolated against her.  But one of those allies was mighty America, and none of Israel’s enemies could defeat her with her great ally protecting her.

That period ended in 2008 when America voted for Barack Hussein Obama.  And America reaffirmed its choice earlier this month when it said that it wanted more of what Obama’s spiritual guide for 23 years prophetically called “God damn America.”

Israel is now more isolated than it has EVER been.

Israel is forced to contemplate an invasion of Gaza for the same reason it had to do so a few years ago: because Palestinian terrorists are launching hundreds of missiles that could land damn near ANYWHERE and which force a complete shutdown of Israeli society.  Such an indiscriminate attack against innocent civilians would be decried and condemned by the world if anyone else did it TO anyone else, but it is the Arab world viciously attacking Israel, and so the elite talking heads pooh-pooh the violence while reserving their condemnation against Israel.  An article from the generally leftist Daily Beast from when this last happened in 2009 proves what I’m arguing:

Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn’t dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel’s close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium. […]

The current rocket attack is nothing new.  Arabs hate Israelis and love murdering their citizens and their children.  When they run out of rockets to fire at Israel, they demand a cease fire that prevents Israel from destroying the weapons that the terrorists will stockpile for the NEXT surprise attack against Israel’s people.  The terrorists stockpile and fire their rockets in dense population centers in homes and schools and hospitals counting on the fact that Israel will have to kill women and children to destroy the rockets that would otherwise be used to try to kill Jewish women and children.  The world that could frankly care less if Jewish women and children are murdered are outraged that Palestinian women and children are being killed.  It doesn’t matter if those Palestinian children are being killed because Palestinian terrorists are putting rockets in their cribs.  And so the world demands that the Arabs get their cease fire so they can stockpile more weapons and start the war again.  Over and over and over, as needed, until Israel is gone.  This vile game is called “international diplomacy.”

Israelis believed that Bush was pro-Israel to the tune of 88% affirming that statement.  When only 6% of Israelis view Obama as being “pro-Israel,” if you have eyes to see and ears to hear you understand that Obama’s election left Israel more isolated.

Further, the last time Israel was bombarded with rockets, Egypt was an ally that was firmly on Israel’s side.  Today the new Muslim Brotherhood terrorist president of Egypt has openly sided with the enemies of Israel and has passively allowed the Palestinians to use Egypt as a conduit for their rocket arsenal – with said rockets manufactured in Iran –  so they can keep trying to murder more Jews and provoke a reaction from Israel knowing that the world will condemn Israel.

The Prime Minister of Turkey just called Israel a terrorist state and urged the terrorists targeting Israel to keep murdering Jews.

An Associated Press reporter named Matthew Lee bravely called attention to the fact that Barack Obama is inherently useless and weak in actually standing up for Israel in ANY meaningful way and exposed the true cowardice that is the core of Obama:

But the American people voted for a president who would turn his back on Israel in true time of need.

Meanwhile, Iran is racing toward its nuclear weapons which represent the extinction of the state of Israel and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.

Iran WILL get nuclear weapons.  America voted for that on November 6th.  The Iranian leadership knows with certainty that Barack Hussein Obama will NEVER order a massive military attack against Iran.  Iran knows that it is 16,275,183,000,000 percent free to continue working on their goal of Armageddon and Obama will do nothing but offer rhetoric and meaningless sanctions to prevent what will now necessarily happen.

And allow me to cite the source that affirms that Obama’s sanctions have been completely ineffective just in case you are fool enough to believe that Obama was being honest with you:

Iran nuclear work at constant pace despite sanctions – IAEA
By Alexandria Sage and Fredrik Dahl | Reuters – November 20, 2012

PARIS/VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran is enriching uranium at a constant pace and international sanctions aimed at making Tehran suspend the activity are having no visible impact, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said in unusually blunt remarks on Tuesday.

The point made by Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reinforced the view of many analysts that increased Western economic pressure on Iran has failed to make it change its nuclear course. […]

So the only way to stop Iran is war.  But Obama won’t go to war.  And Iran knows full damn well Obama won’t go to war to stop them from threatening the existence of Israel.  Therefore Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iran will also have the means to deliver those weapons much sooner than the Obama administration has claimed.

Israel is being pushed and prodded and forced into the arms of Antichrist.  And Israel will ultimately do what the world wants and sign that peace covenant so that hell on earth may officially begin.

America will soon be getting what it most dearly yearns for: it will get to worship the beast and take his mark.

The Hell With It. Let’s Just Go Off The Damn Fiscal Cliff. Because You Just Can’t Negotiate With These People.

I just got through writing an article calling for a compromise on the tax hike Obama is demanding.  I already have to eat my words.

It is frankly hard to believe how pathologically Democrats prove themselves to be on a constant basis, even as much as I distrust Democrats and call them liars to their faces.

Realize that Democrats – and particularly Obama – have been saying that we need to hike taxes on the rich.  In order to do what?  In order to reduce the deficit, they said.  A nice, noble-sounding reason.  I mean, how can you possibly be against wanting to reduce the deficit???

Here’s a headline of Obama demagoguging tax hikes on the rich under the pretense that it would be to reduce the deficit:

Obama proposes $1.5tn tax hike to cut deficit
US president announces a number of measures aimed at reducing deficit in next 10 years, saying rich should pay more tax.
Last Modified: 19 Sep 2011

Here’s Obama over a year later, preaching the same message:

Obama says deficit plan must include higher taxes for wealthy
By Amie Parnes and Russell Berman – 11/09/12 03:51 PM ET

President Obama called on Congress on Friday to reduce the deficit in “a balanced and responsible way” in his first public remarks since winning reelection.

The president said Congress should extend the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans, but raise taxes on households with annual income of more than $250,000.

Obama did not talk about higher tax rates in his speech, but said he would not accept a deal that cut spending and entitlements but did not ask wealthier households to pay more taxes.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said. “That’s how we did it in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, that’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.”

But Democrats are LIARS and you simply cannot do a deal with these liars because they have no integrity at all in any way, shape or form.

Take a look at this:

Senate Democrats say deficit package must include stimulus
By Alexander Bolton – 11/14/12 01:42 PM ET

Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures.

They have yet to decide which prime-the-pump measures to push, but are mulling options such as new infrastructure spending and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Some Republicans are likely to balk at the notion that a package to cut the deficit would include new spending. But Democrats argue the No. 1 concern for voters is job creation and that the government needs to take a more aggressive role in spurring the economy.

“We need to do something on stimulus as part of the overall fiscal cliff,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist. “We have to do something because the economy is not growing fast enough in the first year or two.”

Democrats are liars, and they are particularly liars ANYTIME they say ANYTHING about cutting government spending.  Period.

Obama is the selfsame president who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead tripled that deficit.  And now they’re already at it again just days since they ran a campaign based entirely on lies.

Democrats are now implicitly acknowledging that the “hike taxes so we can pay down the deficit” was a lie and a ruse from the deceitful party of lies and ruses.  Now they’re saying, “People who believe what we say are fools, so we have no qualms about lying in every single ‘promise’ we make.  We’ll promise one thing and then do another, and if you’re dumb enough to believe us then doom on you!”

Here’s another headline to show you just how damn far Obama is from “compromise” while he demonizes the Republicans for not compromising:

Obama Demands $1.6 Trillion More In Taxes Posted
by Adam English on the Wealth Wire
Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

President Obama will begin budget negotiations on Friday morning but moving twice as far away from Republican interests. Instead of the $800 billion in extra federal revenue from tax hikes,Obama will be calling for a whopping $1.6 trillion.

On the other side of the table, House Speaker John Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target, but he has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenues. He is still unwilling to consider higher tax rates.

As a condition for the possible concession, Boehner continues to insist that Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs which are causing long-term budget concerns.

President Obama just attended a meeting with union officials and other activists and will be meeting with CEOs of a dozen companies today. Many executives have already voiced grave concerns about the consequences of the looming standoff over the fiscal cliff.

73% of participants of a Wall Street Journal CEO conference earlier this week said their primary concern was the fiscal cliff.

How the hell do you actually move TWICE as far away to the left from your previous bargaining posture while simultaneously self-congratulating yourself for “compromising” and demonizing the party that HASN’T moved twice as far to the right on their bargaining position?  I don’t know, but with the help of the worst media propaganda since Goebbels, Obama has managed to do it.

Statement of fact: “The offer is twice as high as a deal Obama scuttled last year, suggesting he may be prepared to let talks fail again.”  That deal – which took Boehner to the breaking point – called for $800 billion in tax hikes.  Now Obama is demanding tax hikes that will be TWICE as high as last time.  While somehow trying to simultaneously claim that HE is the one willing to compromise!

Republicans – you know – “the obstructionists” – have offered Obama revenues that match what he says he needs by eliminating and/or capping deductions.  And it turns out that Obama HIMSELF has argued that what the Republicans are proposing is a solution:

The idea of curbing tax breaks isn’t new. Tax policy experts have touted it for  years and Democrats, including President Obama, have proposed it in one form or  another. That’s why it may offer a key to resolving the fiscal cliff.

So this isn’t about raising revenue; this is about targeting one group of people to punish them for daring to try to be successful in America.  This is about an out-of-control government demanding more and more control.  This is about pure demagoguery, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has DOUBLED DOWN on his demand while the Republicans have offered a surprising concession in being willing to increase government revenues.  But because we live in a world that Joseph Goebbels would love, the media STILL portrays Obama as the man who is “compromising” even though he is in fact demanding TWICE as much and the Republicans as “obstructionists” even though they are massively compromising.

I’m not the only human being who can see the massive, galling, astonishing hypocrisy and dishonesty from the Democrat Party, am I?

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans come to the table willing to compromise or not; they are demonized anyway, just the same.  So why compromise?

If Democrats want tax hikes, let’s give them to EVERYBODY.  If you want somebody else to pay more taxes, dammit, YOU should pay higher taxes.

I was looking for some way forward for Republicans and some way out of this fiscal cliff mess.  But let’s just go off that damn cliff.  Because there is no possible way to negotiate with people as deceitful and dishonest and disingenuous as Democrats have proven themselves to be.  And because “the cliff” can’t be any worse than the direction Obama wants to take America, anyway.

What I’d Do To Resolve Stalemate Between Republicans And Democrats On Taxes Targeting The Rich

We seem to be in a real fix.  Obama won reelection and seems to think he had a mandate.  In reality, Obama is the first president in American history who got reelected with a SMALLER percentage of the vote and electoral college majority than he did in 2008.  Very much like hated Republican boogeymen such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were both reelected with larger majorities than they first got into office with.

And yes, the same electorate that gave Obama a “mandate” also reelected an overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives and gave THEM a mandate.  If Obama has a damn mandate, then the Republican House has every damn much as big of a mandate as Obama has.

For the record, if you want to see what an actual “mandate” really looks like, click here.  Because Ronald Reagan had a mandate.

That versus Obama’s “food stamp mandate” is all you should need to know which side has had a plan to truly build an America that can increase in size and power and which side has a plan to bring America to its knees and ultimately to extinction via unsustainable welfare spending to buy off voters as jobs are destroyed.

So if Obama wants, he can have a pissing contest and insist that Republicans betray their most deeply held convictions about what creates job growth and what STYMIES job growth.  And the only people who will lose are the American people.

The simple, repeatedly historically-proven fact is this: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.  It is a simple fact of history that when Calvin Coolidge cut the income tax rates, we got an economic boom and increased our tax revenue by increasing economic growth.  When John F. Kennedy cut the tax rates, voilà, we got more revenue.  When Ronald Regan cut the income tax rates, we got a twenty-year trajectory of economic growth.  And yes, when George W. Bush cut the tax rates, guess what?  We got significantly higher tax revenues than we had had before Bush cut taxes.  And to this day the highest year of tax revenues was NOT in the early 1960s when the top marginal rate was 92% and we had a godawful tax revenue problem, but in 2007 under George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton increased taxes in 1993.  And the economy responded with such weakness that the American people decided to elect the largest Republican majorities that took over both the House AND the Senate in history just to show you how well the Clinton tax hike worked.  Do you want to know when Clinton got real economic growth?  After the Republicans were elected, after Clinton said “The era of big government is over” and after he signed the Republican-originated and Republican-passed Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997 which massively cut the capital gains tax rate.

Obama simply does not have the instinct to compromise that Bill Clinton did.  Which is why we have this exchange with ABC anchor Charles Gibson:

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

In that exchange, Obama officially admitted, “I will not collect as much revenue by attacking the rich.  But I don’t care.”

Obama wants to target the rich, demagogue them, punish them, gin up the kind of class warfare rage that Karl Marx ginned up in his day.  And we just saw, as morally depraved as it is, it’s apparently goooood politics with an amoral American people.  The problem is that what will happen if Obama gets his way is that we’ll see LESS revenue, NOT more.  The rich will increase their rate of withdrawing money from the economy, from investment and from job creation, and instead shelter it and spend it on tax attorneys to keep as much of their money as they can.  We’ve seen this over and over again.

If you actually wanted more tax revenue, i.e., money that could actually help the poor, the smartest thing you could do would be to cut the tax rates and allow investment and business growth to increase the size of the economy and the tax base.  And the very stupidest thing you can do would be to listen to Obama.

Well, the American people are stuck on stupid.  And here’s the fix the Republicans are in: Obama will keep demagoguing and claiming that the answers to America’s prosperity are found in Marxist class warfare.  The implicit message is that the communists got it right; and the means to prosperity is to seize the wealth and redistribute it.  I mean, you can take out the words like “socialist” and “Marxist” and “communist,” but what you can’t do is describe what Obama wants to do and not realize that it’s fundamentally Marxist in approach.  Both want to seize the wealth and redistribute that wealth.  Period.  And so if the Republicans don’t give Obama his tax attack on the rich, we’ll go off the fiscal cliff and Obama – even though the fiscal cliff was HIS idea – will blame the Republicans for it.  And he will succeed, because the mainstream media is nothing more than leftist propaganda these days.  And as we fall off the cliff and into recession, Obama will keep explaining “why”: because Republicans are obstructing and protecting the rich at the expense of the rest of the people.

As completely wrong as Obama is, it his course is by far and away the easiest to demagogue.  When you realize that if all the people who got food stamps voted for Obama, there’s 75% of all the people who voted for him right there with just that, you see how politically powerful Obama’s course is.  At least until America fiscally collapses under the sheer massive weight of its debt.

So what do I propose?  Let Obama have his way.  IF.

Obama says that attacking and devouring the rich is the path to American prosperity.  Prove it, Mister President.  Tell us how much your tax increase will increase tax revenue.  Put a specific number on that claim into the version of the bill that Obama must sign.  And if tax revenues do not go up by the amount you said that they would go up, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.  No excuses.

As an example, consider what the Bush Tax Cut did:

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Do you notice that not only did tax revenues massively increase, but in fact the percentage of taxes paid by the rich also massively increased?

Read what even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge about the FACT that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

You can say whatever the hell you want, liberal.  But the Bush tax cut resulted in a fifteen percent increase in tax revenue.  According even to the New York Times.

Allow me to interject here that liberal “intellectuals” are actually the stupidest people in the world.  Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”  And what makes Forrest Gump an authority here is that he was a mentally retarded man who listened to the common sense wisdom of a mother who was determined to teach her son to succeed in the real world.  And the story teaches us that Forrest listened to his mother’s wisdom and lived his life according to her proverbs – and he flourished while all the “smart” people around him either lived like fools or came to embrace Forrest Gump’s wisdom.  In the same manner, liberal intellectuals are profoundly stupid people because they hate the world as it actually is and are determined to replace reality with their various “-isms” – such as communism and fascism and existentialism and postmodernism and nihilism – instead.  They refuse to see the world as it is and constantly seek to impose morally idiotic theories that are utterly false.  And that is precisely what they are doing now with their tax demagoguery.  Because “redistributionism” is every bit as stupid and unrealistic of an “-ism” as all the other “-isms” I just listed.

Getting back to point, what numbers do YOU have to “put your money where your mouth is,” Obama???  Are you prepared to make specific guarantees that your tax plan will increase revenues and increase the size of the economy such that if those numbers don’t materialize, YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG AND YOUR TAX HIKE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL?

Republicans should force Obama to produce hard numbers predicting the revenues his tax hikes will generate by a specific time.  And also demand to know up front exactly how much Obama’s tax warfare plan will reduce the debt.  And Republicans ought to demand that if those hard numbers and dates aren’t met, that Obama’s tax warfare will automatically end and the Bush tax cuts will automatically take their place.

At the very least, that would at least give some demagoguery to the Republicans for a change.  Because if Obama says, “Well, my Marxist tax war on the rich won’t actually have very much effect even in my best case scenario,” then Republicans can rightfully ask, “Then why the hell have you spent most of the last four years harping on it, you demagogue?”  And if Obama wants to make grandiose predictions, then those predictions can and should be hard-baked into the legislation which should also include triggers to kill it if those grandiose predictions aren’t actualized.

Republicans control one-third of the government.  But Democrats clearly have the ball.  The trick is to hold Democrats RESPONSIBLE for their grandiose claims such that if those claims aren’t fulfilled, they are disgraced officially and for the permanent historical record.

Give Obama what he wants – but make him and the Democrat Party pay dearly for it if what happens isn’t what they say will happen if they get their way.

And if Obama won’t agree to these terms, well, then, simply tell Obama’s supporters that if you people want tax increases, well, you should damn-well GET your tax increases.  And you will therefore get to pay the high taxes that you hypocritically and dishonestly wanted to force on somebody else now.  Because the people who ought to be paying the highest taxes in this country are the people who say that somebody ELSE ought to pay higher taxes while they get off scott free.  So to hell with it: let EVERYBODY pay high taxes and be done with it.

And we’ll be able to find out that way that Democrats are liars and that you can’t tax your way into prosperity, too.

I write this because the tactic of fighting over every mole hill shouldn’t be our tactic any longer.  We just lost that battle, I would argue.  If the Democrats demand something like these tax hikes and promise it will fix the economy, oppose it philosophically, demand language within the legislation itself that will officially make the Democrats completely responsible for their false promises, and then let them destroy themselves and as much of America as it takes to finally realize that Democrats are a bunch of pied pipers who are leading us to our national extinction.

Congratulations, America, You Got What You Voted For: Soaring Unemployment, A Crashing DOW. Next Comes The Beast (You’ll Be Worshiping Him Soon)

As I noted, the day following the re-coronation of Obama as the Pharaoh in Chief saw the DOW plunge to historically high levels as investors and businesses pretty much said, “To hell with it.”

The 313 point plunge in the DOW on November 7, 2012 was the second worst point-drop in history following a presidential election and tied for fourth in American history in terms of overall drop in value.  Obama actually set the record for both categories when he was elected in 2008: the day of November 5, 2008 that followed the news that Obama would have his first four years to destroy the American economy was greeted with an almost 500-point drop or a 5% decrease in the value of the DOW.  And November 7th’s DOW drop puts the kibosh on any assertion that November 5 of 2008 was somehow a fluke.  So let’s say it with enthusiasm: “you’re #1, Obama!  No one but no one can destroy an economy like you!”

In both cases, it was the economy saying that a president like Barack Obama who would declare war on jobs, on productivity, and pretty much on anything that makes America great, is akin to a judgment of doom for this nation.

Since Obama was reelected, investors and business have decided that the economy and job-creation will take a four-year vacation.  The DOW has taken a nearly 700-point plunge since Obama was reelected as of today.

I know, I know, liberal.  Those vile rich people should all die and their flesh should be ground up for food after all the wealth they worked so hard to build for themselves and for their children has been confiscated and redistributed.

Here’s the thing: jobs are going the way of the Dodo bird and rich people in America.  Because people who voted for Obama don’t want jobs; they want socialism and communist redistribution of other people’s money.

The Lonely Conservative – and dang, I’m feeling kind of lonely since last week too, I’ve got to admit – posted these little factoids about Obama and the job boom that will now clearly never happen:

Initial Jobless Claims Soar To 439,000 – Updated
November 15, 2012
By Lonely Conservative

Isn’t it interesting that the jobless claims reported in the weeks leading up to the election were so low, and now that the election is behind us we get a report like this one? Of course, it was all unexpected to economists, who didn’t see the whopping 439,000 coming. Naturally, MarketWatch is doing their duty and blaming it on Sandy. You know, because it couldn’t have anything to do with the massive layoffs due to Obamacare.

The damage caused by Hurricane Sandy sent U.S. jobless claims soaring by 78,000 in the week ended Nov. 10 to an 18-month high of 439,000, according to the latest government figures. A Labor Department official on Thursday said claims surged in the eastern parts of the country that laid in the path of the storm. The destruction of job sites, closure of government offices and widespread power outages caused more people to file claims after an initial delay. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected claims to climb to 380,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. Initial claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 361,000 from an original reading of 355,000, based on more complete data collected at the state level. (Read More)

Good grief, when they revise this number what will it go up to?

If that’s not bad enough, have you seen how the stock market has been doing since the election?

Ever since Obama won eight days ago, stock prices are down about 4% as this is being recorded. So stocks peaked September 14—two months before the election—when the Federal Reserve announced the current version of quantitative easing, and stocks held up pretty much right through an election day rally.

But now that the election is over stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight. This is no accident given investors’ fears of higher taxes and continued big spending, including higher taxes on capital gains, which inevitably will tank the economy. In fact, I believe we are headed for a recession. (Read More)

Well, it’s not like people weren’t warned. If you’re an Obama voter and having second thoughts, you might want to re-think where you get your news in the future.

Update: Zero Hedge is a good place to get economic news, like this:

The latest initial claims data posted a multi-year high 104,548 surge in weekly NSA claims from 361,800 to 466,348, and even the Seasonally adjusted number soaring from 361K to 439K on expectations of a 375K print. In other words, a complete disaster for any economic data bulls. What is truly amusing is that the same Wall Street “experts” who set expectations were unable to foresee the Sandy effect that every “macrotourist” on Twitter apparently is so very aware of. Also, it is apparently also “Sandy’s fault” (now that the Bush excuse is back in retirement) that the prior week’s claims were revised from 355K to 361K. Basically, just as we said 3 weeks ago, ignore every negative data point: it is Sandy’s fault. However, for the snapback, when there actually is good news to be had, well, “four more years.” Finally, to all the Sandy apologists: is the logic here that: if Hurricane, then Fire everyone? Because that is what is implied… (Read More)

Update 2: Oh look – The Euro Zone is in another recession, so jobless claims can be blamed on that!

Update 3: The states with the highest number of new jobless claims were Ohio and Pennsylvania. Go figure.

That 439,000 new jobless filing is the worst since April of 2011.

“Forward” is a great slogan and everything, but the only way Obama is going to take America “forward” is to drive us off the fiscal cliff that was his bright idea to create in the first place (and see here for more because Obama set this disaster up from the very start).  The fact of the matter is that it is a documented fact by one of the great journalists in American history that the idea for sequestration – i.e. the “fiscal cliff” or “taxmageddon” – came from Obama’s chief of staff Jack Lew and Rob Nabors (Obama’s White House Assistant to the President and head of the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs).  The money quote:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

So anybody who wants to assert that sequestration originated ANYWHERE other than the Obama White House is a documented liar.  Not that liberals care about being documented liars.

Let me explain to you how Obama will use the sequestration monster that he created in terms of a cartoon analogy: the mad scientist builds a giant indestructible killer robot that he threatens to turn loose on America unless the nation bow down before him and do whatever he wants.  Unfortunately, in the cartoons super heroes show up to defeat the giant killer robot and save the day, and all we’ve got as heroes now is a House filled with mostly shocked and awed Republicans.

Obama is threatening to use the vicious, economy murdering monster that he built (without ever actually bothering to acknowledge that HE was the one who built it, fwiw) to bring down America unless he gets the war on the rich that he so desperately wants as a true ideological Marxist.

It doesn’t matter to the American people that Obama invented sequestration.  It doesn’t matter that sequestration will result in shockingly high unemployment and recession.  It doesn’t matter that Obama is and has been saying all along he would plunge America into joblessness and serious recession unless his demands to directly attack job creators and investors are not met.  It doesn’t matter that when America needed to be saved from sequestration, Obama was swearing he would veto any bill that tried to save the nation from his monster.  All that matter is that Obama will be depicted by the mainstream media as the good guy and the hero and that the Republicans will be portrayed as the villains who somehow caused all this mess (because we’re not going to remember that Obama actually caused it).

This is a country that just boldly declared that it truly deserves to suffer.  And it is going to get the true suffering that it so boldly deserves.

If you believe that businesses and investors think that Obama will be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for America, and that in cutting their own losses they will cut the thread that our economy is hanging upon, you are insane.  There is absolutely no question that Obama-believers are morally insane, but you can add clinically “disassociated from reality” to the list.

Under Obama, America dropped from first place to seventh place after losing ground every single year of his presidency.  Not that that matters one wit to liberals, of course.

The Obama presidency will leave an America that is “worse tasting, smaller-sized and higher priced.”

We’ve already seen unparalleled “messiah-worship” of an American president in Obama: we’ve seen the man literally place his image on the flag because he thinks HE is America and the only thing that America should love.  We’ve seen the Obama campaign team refer to Obama as “Black Jesus” to kick out Christ and replace the King of kings and Lord of lords with Obama.  And yes, we’ve seen the enthusiastic determination of Democrats to replace Jesus with their REAL messiah, Obama.

Obama is Just Like Jesus, says his wife.  There’s no such thing as “us and them”.  Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in Obama’s sight.  The sheer worship is absolutely astonishing.

The Democrat Party under Obama is the Party that kicked God out of its platform before hastily deciding to put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos from the Party that Shakes Its Fist At God (see also here).

The Democrat Party under Obama or pretty damn much everybody else is the Party of Holocaust with 55 million innocent human beings butchered in a manner that I would not want to put an insect through.  One day every single Democrat will stand before the Father while flames of wrath billow out from His Throne and give an answer for why they supported the ugliest mass murder of human life in all of history.

The Democrat Party under Obama is a Party that worships homosexuality and sodomy.  And as much as they worship sodomy and homosexuality, they hate God, they hate the Bible, they hate Judeo-Christianity, they hate Western Civilization, and they viscerally hate and despise the name of Jesus.

And America has been paying for its support of this party for the past six years.  Because when America decided that demagogic Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should run the House and the Senate back in 2006, unemployment was 4.4%.

And of course Democrats were bitching up a storm at that unemployment rate and swearing up and down that they could do better.  And instead they led America “forward.”

“Forward” to the Antichrist and the mark of the beast.

According to the Bible, the coming Antichrist will be worshiped as God.  Let me ask you, how does that happen?

Prior to the coming of the Antichrist, America and the rest of the world will experience a financial collapse the likes of which the world has never before seen.  The world will suddenly find itself awash in wars and famines and mass deaths.  Things will be looking grim beyond belief.

And then suddenly, as if riding in on a white horse to save the day, will come the figure that the Bible has described as “the beast.”

We are watching that collapse building and growing and metastasizing.  And when we voted for Obama, we voted for the collapse and for the beast who would come because of that collapse.

And the same people who voted for Obama are the same sorry already-doomed fools who will worship the beast and enthusiastically take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  Because the mark of the beast will be nothing more than the ultimate, big government, liberal economic plan.  It will represent everything that the Democrat Party – and for that matter the Communist Party – has been building toward for the last eighty years.

It wasn’t merely Obama who will have murdered America – although Obama will ultimately be the poster boy for the murder and downfall and collapse of America.  No, this was a process began by Democrats and initiated and implemented under FDR in 1932 with Social Security.

The real “national debt” that will bankrupt America isn’t the $16 trillion that Obama is responsible for 60% of in only four misbegotten years as our Pharaoh; it’s $222 trillion, and in fact $224.75 trillion given the fact that that report of $222 trillion is a few months old now.

You need to understand that the Obama regime is “the Cloward and Piven presidency.”  And you need to understand why Democrats are so relentlessly pushing for a complete collapse of the United States of America.  As I wrote back in 2009:

The only question, given the massive debts Obama has already accumulated – deficits that literally are more than every president has accumulated from George Washington to George W. Bush, combined – is whether the Cloward-Piven strategy will yet have its chance to work.  It might already be too late.  When you look at our real national debt of more than $100 TRILLION and realize that we cannot possibly repay it, if you have any sense you should get more than a little bit concerned that our leaders simply WILL NOT control their spending.

The Democrats have an endgame: when the system collapses, the panicked people will turn to the very government that created the calamity and demand that it take care of them.  And that is precisely what big government liberals have always preached.

Notice that we went from talking about debt of “more than $100 trillion” to “more than $222 trillion” since then.  But also notice that there’s an endgame in mind: when America collapses, a desperate people who already demonstrated to all time and eternity that they are a) stupid and b) depraved will demand that the government step in to help them.  And bingo, you’ve got the communist state that Democrats have dreamed of since liberals forced LBJ to quit trying to fight communism so they could join the communists.

Democrats like Obama are hoping for a complete American collapse because they believe they can steer it in the direction they desire.  And of course, under the leadership of the Antichrist, that question will be answered with the words, “Yes we can!”

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UP.  THAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”  The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.