Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Hillary Clinton Savagely Attacks Elizabeth Warren For Greedily Exploiting Poor, Oppressed Families (At Least, If She Weren’t A Hypocrite)

May 26, 2016

Hillary Clinton tore into Donald Trump when her mainstream media dirt-mining propagandists dug up a 2006 Trump quote:

“He actually said he was hoping for the crash that caused hard-working families in California and across America to lose their jobs,” she said at a campaign event outside of Los Angeles. “All because he thought he could take advantage of it to make some money for himself.”

Clinton ally Elizabeth Warren pounced on the story with a tweet:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren jumped in as well last night, saying Trump was “drooling over a housing meltdown” and asking her audience, “What kind of man does that?”

There’s only one problem, Hell-ery: Elizabeth Warren, the heart and soul of the left, DID THE EXACT SAME FREAKING that Donald Trump did that you say is so damn vile:

Elizabeth Warren Bought Foreclosed Homes to Make a Quick Profit
by Jillian Kay Melchior & Eliana Johnson May 27, 2015 4:00 AM
Before the crash that she blamed on speculators, Senator Elizabeth Warren made a bundle by flipping houses.
Nearly two years after Veo Vessels died, her daughter, 70-year-old Mary Frances Hickman, decided to sell the home her mother had left to her. A sprawling brick house in Oklahoma City’s historic Highland Park neighborhood, it was built in 1924, just a year after Mary’s birth.
Decades later, one of Vessels’ great-grandchildren fondly recalls the wood and tile floors, the fish pond, the butler’s quarters, and the multi-car garage where children played house.
“It was really, really nice,” says Hickman’s granddaughter, Andrea Martin. That’s part of the reason she’s so surprised her grandmother sold the home in 1993 for a mere $30,000. Despite a debilitating stroke, Martin says Hickman remained sharp, and she had always been business-savvy. As an Avon saleswoman, she had at times ranked among the top ten in the country. “So I don’t know why,” Martin says. “Maybe she just wanted out from underneath it, but to sell it for such a low number — I don’t know. Maybe she got bad advice, maybe she was just tired.”
The home’s new owner: Elizabeth Warren, today a Massachusetts senator who has built a political career on denouncing the sort of banking titans and financial sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy. Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid, according to Oklahoma County Property Assessor records.
Warren rose to political prominence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a crusader against big banks and a dispenser of common-sense economic advice. She campaigned for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, intended to shield people from the predations of the mortgage and credit-card industries, among others. In her 2006 book All Your Worth, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia, Warren lists as a top myth the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping them quickly.” She has made a career out of telling people how to behave in financially responsible ways, and out of creating laws that will make it illegal for them to do otherwise.
Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid.
But Warren bought and sold at least five properties for profit at a different time in her life, before the cratering economy and a political career made her a star. Her life story has been the subject of much interest, and her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, chronicled her rise from humble beginnings in small-town Oklahoma and her struggle to make ends meet. It didn’t much mention, though, the early 1990s, years when her children were teenagers and she was once again happily married. These are years when she wasn’t yet the multimillionaire she is today, and, she has said, she was voting Republican.
As a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and later as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, she was doing well for herself, building both her professional profile and her wealth. She owes at least part of her considerable financial success, it seems, to snapping up these properties in her native Oklahoma and turning them for a profit — though today that’s not a practice she endorses for the many people looking to emulate her success. The Boston Herald reported on these purchases during Warren’s Senate run in 2012, noting that she invested in “the often topsy-turvy real-estate market of the 1990s” and that her actions “don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.”
(By our deadline, Warren’s office did not respond to our request for an interview with the senator or for a request for comment from the senator’s spokesperson about the home sales.)
Hickman’s granddaughter Martin says of the home flip: “I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t really know much about it. . . . You flip houses to make a profit, so I can’t really fault [Warren] much. I think my grandmother made a mistake by selling it for so cheap. . . . She had worked hard all her life and was a self-made woman.”
Don Vessels — a grandson of Veo Vessels, and the nephew of Mary Frances Hickman — said he had not known that Warren had purchased the family home, but “my reaction is that it’s kind of par for the course.” He added: “What’s said and what’s done in politics are two different things. Mary Hickman, being the executor of the estate, should have sold it for the highest price on the market, which I’m not sure she did. But the house was not in fantastic shape, I can tell you that. It was a very nice house when it was purchased, but my grandmother kind of let it fall into disrepair.”
Records show Warren bought the house Hickman inherited from her mother, located at 200 N.W. 16th Street, in August 1993 and quickly obtained permits to do plumbing and electrical work, selling it five months later for a 383 percent gain.

The article goes on to describe what Democrats would call greedy profiteering in the remaining cases of Pocahontas doing the very thing she demonized.  It ends thus:

In her 2014 autobiography, Warren wrote of the events that precipitated the financial crisis that “everyone seemed to have a story about someone they knew who was getting rich by flipping houses.”

She omitted a crucial one.

Because she’s a Democrat and that’s what Democrats do like no one else in the history of mankind.

If you are a Democrat, you are nothing but a cockroach hypocrite slandering liar of the worst form imaginable.

The history of socialism has been consistent from day one: incredibly cynical demagogues claiming to be doing everything they do in the name of the people who exploit the very people they falsely claim to be helping and hypocritically enriching themselves.  In the communist Soviet days you had your political class living it up in their Black Sea vacation dachas while the people they lied to had NOTHING.  And that tradition continues with Elizabeth Warren and Hiller Clinton.

Elizabeth Warren – again the heart and soul of the uber-feminist left – is just utter slime.  And Donald Trump is using her face like a mop and just wiping her face in the filthy toilet that is her life.

He calls her “Pocahontas” because this deceiving liar – who in biological fact is about as WHITE as you can possibly get – manufactured a “Native American” ancestry based on her narcissistic belief that she had “high cheekbones” and then cynically and dishonestly exploited her own lie to get benefit after benefit that she didn’t deserve.

This is clearly a woman who took about 3 million self-adoring selfies of herself too many, and came to believe her own delusions as she photo shopped herself into a Native American.  Well, either that, or she is just the worst sort of liar there is.

And now he just destroyed this witless, slimy hypocrite fool yet again:

Trump-Warren-Flipping

I marvel at the dishonesty and hypocrisy that characterizes every single Democrat today as we enter the very last days just before Democrats worship the coming Antichrist and take his mark on their right hands, or on their foreheads.

The simple fact of the matter is that if every reporter covering Hillary Clinton doesn’t get in her face and ask if she thinks Warren should resign from the Senate due to her disgraceful past in which she “caused hard-working families in California and across America to lose their jobs” and “thought she could take advantage of it to make some money for herself.”  If they don’t, you can know for certain that every single mainstream media entity is on the same propagandist page as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Katie Couric’s brand of rabidly biased “journalism.”

Just remember, if you see Hell-ery Clinton’s lips moving, whatever the hell is coming out of her mouth has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth, or with integrity.

And the same thing applies with her slick Willy husband Bill, who by her own words ought to be rotting in a prison cell right now for rape.  And Juanita Broadderick’s story is just another example of a dishonest media refusing to publish a story because to be a liberal is to be the worst kind of hypocrite.

Let’s sniff something called REALITY as we consider what Barack Obama has done to our economy and our way of life.  From the Los Angeles Times:

Shedding light on the precarious economic state of many American families, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that nearly half of U.S. households reported they would have trouble meeting emergency expenses of just $400.

In addition, the Fed found that 22% of workers were juggling two or more jobs last year, higher than what government jobs data would suggest. And nearly one out of three Americans said that they have no retirement savings or pension.

Trump said about his 2006 comment that he is a BUSINESSMAN, and it is the essence of a good businessman to win whether things are good or whether things are bad.  If you want to elect someone who represents the status quo that two-thirds of Americans say is the wrong direction, who only knows how to make bad worse, then elect Hell-ery.  Because you deserve hell.

Why Are Blacks Fleeing Liberal Cities? The Answer Ought To Destroy The Lie That Is The Democrat Party.

May 4, 2016

If Donald Trump marshaled facts like this, he would easily smash Hillary Clinton.  But recent Republican presidential nominees have a rather piss-poor track record of marshaling facts.

But here is the path to destroying the Democratic Party in November: pointing out their actual record and the devastation left in the wake of their stupid and frankly wicked policies.

Let’s just look at blacks for a moment.  Look at what a pompous, arrogant, fact-free, utterly dishonest Obama said:

“Like the rest of America, black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office.”

And then look at the results of this fool-president’s fool-policies regarding blacks in America:

Here are some basic facts about life in black America under President Barack Obama:

  1. In spite of Obama’s $275 billion in housing-market bailouts, home ownership has waned.
  2. In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3% of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, the Census Bureau figure was 64.8%.
  3. Black home ownership has sagged from 46.1% in 2009 to 43.3% in 2014.
  4. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8%.
  5. Fewer than half of young black men are working a full-time job.
  6. The black workforce is decreasing, down from 58.6% in June 2007 to 52.8% in August 2012.
  7. The median minority family’s income is now almost fifth lower than it was when Obama took office with a net worth of just $18,100.
  8. In contrast, white median wealth has increased by 1% to $142,000.
  9. In 2009, white households were 7 times richer than black households. Now, white households are 8 times richer.

Tavis Smiley – no friend whatsoever to conservatives – said this about Barack Obama when asked the following direct question by Donald Trump’s bane, Megyn Kelly:

Megyn Kelly: On the subject of race, are we better off today that seven years ago?

Tavis Smiley: I’m not sure we are and I think ultimately the president missed a moment… On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn’t been good for black folk. This is the president’s most loyal constituency that didn’t gain any ground in that period.

Blacks have lost ground ON EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC CATEGORY ACROSS THE BOARD.  A vote for a Democrat is a vote to cut your own throat, especially if you are in one of the racial classes that racist Democrats most racially demagogue.

So I came across an article that described the massive black exodus from the liberal West Coast cities mostly to the GOP-bastion southern states, and every black person ought to be told about this.  What is going on?  It’s pretty simple: if you want to live your life as a worthless loser on the dole, the Democrat Party is the “massah” for you.  Don’t you worry, jigaboos, the white man knows you are his burden and you’ll get your meager portion of gruel.  The only downside to this arrangement is that that is ALL you will ever be allowed to get for the rest of your lives; because it is literally in the interest of the Democrat Party to keep you down, to keep you poor, because otherwise you would have your own wealth and you not only won’t need the Democrat dole machine, but you would actually become a threat to them as you start voting in such a manner to protect what you earn from your hard work from government taxes; you’ll resent the government regulations that strangle your economic growth.  Massa can’t have that on his plantation.

Again, I can point to reliably leftist sources to acknowledge my basic facts.  Take the very-left leaning Atlantic title and subtitle:

Why Middle-Class Americans Can’t Afford to Live in Liberal Cities: Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

The article begins thus:

On April 2, 2014, a protester in Oakland, California, mounted a Yahoo bus, climbed to the front of the roof, and vomited onto the top of the windshield.

If not the year’s most persuasive act of dissent, it was certainly one of the most memorable demonstrations in the Bay Area, where residents have marched, blockaded, and retched in protest of San Francisco’s economic inequality and unaffordable housing. The city’s gaps—between rich and poor, between housing need and housing supply—have been duly catalogued. Even among American tech hubs, San Francisco stands alone with both the most expensive real estate and the fewest new construction permits per unit since 1990.

But San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are “within reach” for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined “within reach” as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro’s median household income.

If you line up the country’s 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income.

So this brings us to the story of the Democrat Party’s demand for “fair wages” by imposing a $15 minimum wage on every single business whether it can afford it or not.  I most recently wrote about that on April 4 of this year.  And in that article I documented what happens every single time the left pulls one of these shenanigans.  It raises costs on businesses FAR BEYOND the minimum wage, because just for starters it increases the wages of every single worker across the board (i.e., imagine you were making $2 an hour above the minimum wage workers below you at a business; are you now going to earn less than the minimum wage workers, or are you now going to get $17 an hour?  It goes up the scale, which is why the unions wanted it and fought so hard for it even though these hypocrite weasels themselves continued to pay substandard wages to the workers they hired to picket and demagogue the cities and states to impose those wages.

It’s not just true of blacks, it’s true of Hispanics as well; it’s true of poor people in general.  If you take Democrat’s demagogic policies on illegal immigration, for instance, just consider a fundamental principle of economics known as “the law of supply and demand.”  The greater the supply of something, the lower demand for that thing will be.  Realize that when you massively increase the supply of poor, unskilled labor, the value of poor, unskilled labor goes down dramatically.  Which is why wages for unskilled labor have so plummeted, thank you, liberals.

And so the same damnfools who forced your wages down are now attempting to arbitrarily force them up.  So they devastated you by gutting your earning power, and now they’re going to respond by devastating you again by sending already high costs of living into the stratosphere.

Some businesses will go out of businesses, many others will lay off quite a few of their workers and strip their operation down to the bone to stay alive.  But of the business that remain, one thing is FOR CERTAIN: they will raise their prices and pass their increased costs onto their customers.  And that is merely one of myriad ways that liberals force the cost of living to go up and up and up again and then up some more.  Your groceries will cost more and your housing will cost more; and your costs will increase significantly more than the meager boost in wages because Democrats boosted the cost of everything all the way up the chain.

No president has ever been better for the filthy rich than the most dishonest president in American history, Barack Obama.  Under his incredibly dishonest and hypocritical regime, income inequality – the gap between the richest and poorest Americans – skyrocketed.  Again, I turn to a reliably leftist source in the Huffington Post:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
04/11/2012 06:19 pm ET
Alexander Eichler

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

This news may not come as a shock if you’re one of the many Americans who lost their job during the recession and couldn’t find another that paid as well. It also might not surprise you if you’re one of the 46 million people living in poverty — a record number, as it happens — or among the millions of Americans who can get by week to week, but would be ruined by a single financial emergency.

You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.

Here’s an article that you just can’t take a quote from because every paragraph is just so devastating to Democrat stupidity.

Even Bernie Sanders is openly acknowledging that under Obama, income inequality is the worst NOT since the first decade of the 21st century under Bush, but the worst its ever been going back to 1928.

The disease of Obama is similar to the disease of alcoholism; you’re dying because you kept turning more and more to what was in fact killing you.  If you’re a Democrat – and especially if you’re a poor Democrat and most especially if you’re a racial minority Democrat – you’ve succumbed to a diseased pattern of thinking; you have been deceived into believing that what is in actual fact poisoning you and killing you is somehow helping you.

And I believe the metaphor of addiction best describes why so many groups cling to what is killing them: because the more Democrat poison they imbibe, the weaker and sicker they become, the less able to make good decisions.  To the end result that it doesn’t matter how horrible this crap is for you, you keep taking it.  You’ve lost the will and the ability to do anything else.  If you’re a drug addict, you give up your volition to your substance; if you’re a Democrat, you give up your volition to your government.  And either way you end up with your soul sucked out of you.

Democrats need you to depend on them; they need you to be flat on your back.  They will NEVER allow you to get off your back and earn your own way because if that happened you would vote those weasels out of office who want to seize what you earn and redistribute your wealth to other deceived people.  Because these are the kinds of things you have to be fool enough to believe to keep being a Democrat:

  • If Democrats raise my taxes, I’ll have more money
  • If Democrats bring in 12-20 million more illegal immigrants to compete for my job, my labor will be worth more
  • If Democrats raise the cost of living, I’ll be better off
  • If Democrats impose restrictive planning regulations, my house or apartment will cost less
  • If Democrats regulate my business, I’ll have more opportunities
  • The path to freedom is more and more government

Obama and Democrats have destroyed the Middle ClassAverage incomes have plummeted under Obama.

Your life sucks because you’re an Obamaholic and your substance is poisoning you body and soul.

Here is that article on blacks fleeing liberal cities in favor of GOP-dominated southern states:

Why has there been an exodus of black residents from West Coast liberal hubs?
By Aaron Renn
May 1, 2016, 5:00 AM

he Black Lives Matter movement has brought the challenges facing black America to the fore, and introduced racially conscious quality-of-life questions into the national debate. How are black residents in America’s cities faring? And how are those cities doing in meeting the aspirations of their black residents, judged especially by the ultimate barometer: whether blacks choose to move to these cities, or stay in them?

Though results vary to some extent, the broad trend is clear: West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them. Midwestern and Northeastern urban areas are attracting blacks to the extent that they are affordable or providing middle class economic opportunities. And Southern cities are now experiencing the most significant gains.

Portland is part of the fifth-whitest major metropolitan area in America. Almost 75% of the region is white, and it has the third-lowest percentage of blacks, at only 3.1%. (America as a whole is 13.2% black.) Portland proper is often portrayed as a boomtown, but the city’s shrinking black population doesn’t seem to think so. The city has lost more than 11.5% of its black residents in just four years. It’s similar to Seattle, where the central city’s black population has fallen as the overall region’s has grown.

Lower down the coast, the San Francisco Bay area has lost black residents since 2000, though recent estimates suggest that it may have halted the exodus since 2010. San Francisco proper is only 5.4% black, and the rate is falling. The Los Angeles metro area, too, has fewer black residents today than in 2000.

If these figures merely reflected black consumer choice, they wouldn’t necessarily matter; but the evidence suggests that specific public policies in these cities are to blame. Primary among them are restrictive planning regulations, common along the West Coast, that make it hard to expand the supply of housing. In a market with rising demand and static supply, prices go up.

As a rule, a household should spend no more than three times its annual income on a home. But in West Coast markets, housing-price levels far exceed that benchmark — a hardship that more severely affects blacks than whites because blacks start from further behind economically. Black median household income is only $35,481 a year, compared with $57,355 for whites. The wealth gap is even wider, with median black household wealth at only $7,133, compared with $111,146 for whites.

According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, the “median multiple” — the median home price divided by the median household income — should average about 3.0. But the median multiple is 5.1 in Portland, 5.2 in Seattle, 9.4 in San Francisco and 8.1 in Los Angeles.

“West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them.”

Even some on the left recognize how development restrictions hurt lower- and middle-income people. Liberal commentator Matt Yglesias has called housing affordability “Blue America’s greatest failing.” Yglesias and others criticize zoning policies that mandate single-family homes, or approval processes, like that in San Francisco, that prohibit as-of-right development and allow NIMBYism to keep out unwanted construction — and, by implication, unwanted people.

These commentators, however, ignore the role of environmental policy in creating these high housing prices. Portland, for example, has drawn a so-called urban-growth boundary that severely restricts land development and drives up prices inside the approved perimeter. The development-stifling effects of the California Environmental Quality Act are notorious. California also imposes some of the nation’s toughest energy regulations, putting a financial burden on lower-income (and disproportionately black) households. Nearly 1 million households in the state spend 10% or more of their income on energy bills, according to a Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser.

It’s not just liberal Western cities that are losing their black residents — many economically struggling Midwestern cities have the same problem. Detroit, Cleveland, Flint, and Youngstown all have declining black populations.

The greatest demographic transition is taking place in Chicago. A black population loss of 177,000 accounted for the lion’s share of the city’s total shrinkage during the 2000s. Another 53,000 blacks have fled the city since 2010. In fact, the entire metro Chicago area lost nearly 23,000 blacks in aggregate, the biggest decline in the United States.

But in northern cities with more robust middle-class economies, black populations are expanding. Since 2010, for example, metro Indianapolis added more than 19,000 blacks (6.9% growth), Columbus more than 25,000 (9%), and Boston nearly 40,000 (10.2%). New York’s and Philadelphia’s black population growth rates are low but positive, in line with slow overall regional growth.

The somewhat unlikely champion for northern black population growth is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Since 2010, the black population in the city has grown by 15,000 people, or 23%. The region added 30,400 black residents, growing by 12.1%.

Like Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis is considered a liberal stronghold. But, unlike those West Coast cities, it has cultivated a development environment that keeps housing affordable, with a home-price median multiple of only 3.2.

Similarly, in Columbus (with a median multiple of 2.9) and Indianapolis (also 2.9), black families can afford the American dream. (Boston, with its high housings costs, is an outlier.)

Where else are black Americans moving? One destination dominates: the South. A century ago, blacks were leaving the South to go north and west; today, they are reversing that journey, in what the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel DiSalvo dubbed “The Great Remigration.” DiSalvo found that black Americans now choose the South in pursuit of jobs, lower costs and taxes, better public services (notably, schools) and sunny weather for retirement.

Historically, Southern blacks lived in rural areas. A large rural black population remains in the South today, often living in the same types of conditions as rural whites, which is to say, under significant economic strain. But the new black migrants to the South are increasingly flocking to the same metro areas that white people are — especially Atlanta, the new cultural and economic capital of black America, with a black population of nearly 2 million. The Atlanta metro area, one-third black, continues to add more black residents (150,000 since 2010) than any other region.

In Texas, Dallas has drawn 110,000 black residents (11.3% growth) and Houston just under 100,000 (9.2%) since 2010. Miami, with its powerful Latino presence that includes Afro-Latinos, also added about 100,000 blacks (8.3%). Today, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are all home to more than 1 million black residents.

Many smaller southern cities — including Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, and Nashville — are seeing robust black population growth as well.

Not surprisingly, these southern cities are extremely affordable. A combination of pro-business policies combined with a development regime that permits housing supply to expand as needed has proved a winner. (Among these southern cities, only Miami, with its massive influx of Latin American wealth, is rated as unaffordable, with a median multiple of 5.6.)

When it comes to how state and local policies affect black residents’ choices about where to live, cities with the West Coast model of liberalism are the worst performing.

These results should be troubling to progressives touting West Coast planning, economic, and energy policies as models for the nation. If wealthy cities like San Francisco and Portland — where progressives have near-total political control — can’t produce positive outcomes for working-class and middle-class blacks, why should we expect their approach to succeed anywhere else?

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. This piece has been adapted from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Who would have guessed that pro-business policies, zoning laws that prefer people over leftist environmentalist whining, fewer regulations, and the abandonment of leftist (Stalinist) top-down planning would win?  Other than anyone who is NOT A DAMN FOOL???

Democrats guarantee that they will make black people poorer and more dependent.  And all Democrats have is demagoguery and lies piled on top of more demagoguery and more lies.  But I’ll just end by quoting Forrest Gump:

Okay, that’s good but it doesn’t quite go far enough to describe why we’re where we’re at today.  So let me instead end with John Wayne:

.

Minimum Wage Gain, Maximum Poverty Pain

April 4, 2016

The left is using the politically correct term “living wage” to describe their intent to impose their thug government on small businesses who are barely getting by as it is.

I’ve defined the term many times, but let’s consider “PC” again:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

Was George Orwell right in his 1984 first published in 1945 or was he right in his Animal Farm first published in 1949?  And the answer is that Orwell rightly understood that you have to have the ignorance of Animal Farm to get to the true tyranny of 1984.

This is how Cliffs Notes sums up Animal Farm:

Orwell‘s satire on equality, where all barnyard animals live free from their human masters’ tyranny. Inspired to rebel by Major, an old boar, animals on Mr. Jones’ Manor Farm embrace Animalism and stage a revolution to achieve an idealistic state of justice and progress. A power-hungry pig, Napoleon, becomes a totalitarian dictator who leads the Animal Farm into “All Animals Are Equal / But Some Are More Equal Than Others” oppression.

That’s where we are, sheople of America.

Democrats have incited a massive, profound hatred and bitterness to the so-called “white establishment.”  These tyrants have so much power, according to the leftist narrative, that even the mighty Obama, the divine messiah himself, has been unable to free the slaves.  And of course your Hillary Clintons and your Bernie Sanders have to pay lip homage to the Pharaoh god-king Obama while simultaneously irrationally claiming that the last eight years of suffering had nothing to do with Obama and his miserable policies; oh, no, they were inflicted on you by “Mr. Jones.”  And if you just give our power-mad government all the power in the world, we will pursue “economic justice” and thereby “achieve an idealistic state of justice and progress.”

Orwell realized that you cannot get to 1984 without a people stupid enough and wicked enough to buy the lie that enables Animal Farm.  First you must have a people willing to surrender their liberty so that a powerful State can give them whatever they promise in order to get to a slave state.

As Edward R. Murrow put the same idea, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

And when a people gives themselves over to a giant government system, that people deserves to perish.

And so the Democrat Party is well on its way to its cherished goal of ushering in the Antichrist, the beast of the Book of Revelation.  They will NOT rest until every man and woman has been forced by the government to take the economic mark of the beast without which no one will be able to buy or sell.

So let’s consider the Democrat ruse on “living wages” otherwise known as the minimum wage hike.  Understand that I’ve written about this often enough before:

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

Miniumum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease

The Party Of Genuine Evil And The Destruction Of America: In 39 States, Democrat Welfare Pays Better Than A Secretary’s Job

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

The Union Label Is Hypocrisy: Unions Hire Minimum Wage Non-Union Workers To Do Their Picketing For Them

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

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

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

It’s funny how Democrats invented a right to “privacy” in the Constitution that somehow ONLY applied to homosexual sex and abortion.  Why can’t people have a right to “privacy” when they hire someone to do a job?  What right does a government have to interfere with my business?  And on the flip side, why should I be barred from working for somebody if I want to work and I’m willing to do a job for the pay they are offering?

It is simply a FACT that when you artificially raise a wage and force every business to pay that wage regardless of what their employees are doing, or how much profit they actually contribute to a business, that many businesses will decide that job is simply no longer worth offering.  This is simply a fact of basic common sense: otherwise kindly explain to me why we don’t make the minimum wage $1,800 an hour (the hourly billing rate of the lawyer who hit the homerun for homosexual marriage)???  Why don’t we try that and find out how many people would have a damn job the next day.

So obviously it might be good for SOME people and it’s bad for many others.  And the left frankly doesn’t give a damn about those people who lose their jobs any more than they cared about the people who were victims of Obama’s health care law who found out that “If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor” was a cynical lie.

Here’s a synonym for “minimum wage jobs”: ENTRY LEVEL jobs.  The idea is that you work, you develop experience, you prove you are capable of showing up and performing, and you leverage your job history toward increasingly better and better paying jobs.  In the past, at least before Obama got his roach hands into everything, it was mostly teenagers and young people who worked for minimum wage.  To the extent that Obama has made it harder than its ever been to get out of the minimum wage rung, the obvious answer is to repudiate Obama and Democrats rather than change the wage system.  It has always been in the interests of businesses to keep their good-performing people rather than see them go elsewhere; and offering better pay is one of those ways.  The ONLY people who want you to stay in the quagmire of minimum wage pay are DEMOCRATS.  And what Democrats do is force businesses to “spread the wealth” to the underperforming workers because I can’t give Wonderful William the raise he deserves because I was just just forced to give Lousy Lou and Terrible Tom a raise that they didn’t deserve.

The unions that bankroll the Democrat Party exemplify the Democrat mindset: whether you’re the best worker who ever worked or whether you’re the suckiest worker who ever conned his way into a job, you should get the same pay.  Democrats and their thug flunkies literally DEMAND that high-performing workers should NOT be able to get paid for their superior performance.  That’s something called a “documented fact.”  And that’s what’s going on here, rather than Democrats giving one miserable flying damn for good workers.

I loved this quote:

Everything we ever needed to know about collective unions we learned in Kindergarten. Why run around gathering up all the Easter Eggs – if they are just going to be reassembled in a big pile at the end of the hunt and equal amounts given to each ?

But that is precisely what is at the very heart of unions and wage control laws: the notion of forcibly redistributing good workers’ pay to lousy workers.

Then you add to that the problem that I explore further below where by forcing business to raise their wages across the board, they have no choice but to raise their prices.  So now everything cost more; and how did that actually help the worker who now gets to pay more for everything he or she purchases?

The hypocrisy on minimum wages on the part of the left is beyond appalling: liberals demand it, they impose it, and then they exempt themselves from it citing it would create an undue hardship on them to abide by what they force everybody else to abide by.  So you have unions that serve as the Democrat Party’s Brownshirt thugs exempting themselves from the minimum wages they are the stormtroopers in imposing:

Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.

You have the Hollywood that gave nearly 20-to-1 to Obama over Romney in 2012 demanding and receiving tax credits from Democrats:

LA Times Op-Ed To keep ‘Hollywood’ in Hollywood, tax incentives are key

New Tax Credits Boost Filming In L.A. In Q3

And how about the liberal universities?  Consider what I wrote about the sick trend to skyrocket costs on poor students I ranted about in September 2014 right along with the above fascist liberal power-brokers:

This Labor Day, Demand Leftists Professors And Universities Have Their Salaries And Tuition Redistributed To Poor Working Students
September 1, 2014

I am so sick of the left.

On a daily basis, you have the left screaming for a higher and higher minimum wage, beyond what most businesses can afford to pay entry-level and unskilled workers.

The unions want it because they will then demand a wage hike for THEIR workers; after all, if that unskilled slob is now earning twice what he used to, surely that union worker ought to earn twice as much, too, right???

It doesn’t matter how much it hurts the little people who both struggle to run small businesses and struggle to find jobs as they are literally priced out of the market as it simply doesn’t pay to hire them anymore.

So I’m watching the television and there’s this leftist professor demanding higher minimum wages.

Let it come out of HER wages.  Because as a liberal professor, she represents THE most depraved money-hungry predator of ALL:

Between 2002 and 2012, prices for new textbooks rose 82%, while tuition and fees increased about 89% during that period, and overall consumer prices grew 28%, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

That according to the Los Angeles Times dated TODAY.

Tuition is skyrocketing.  The cost of college textbooks is skyrocketing.  And who runs that vile system lock, stock and barrel?  Cockroach liberals who say “other people ought to be forced to pay more.”

THEY ought to be forced to pay more.

I propose college tuition and books be reduced at the expense of college/university faculty and staff.

I further propose that any “living wage” increase ought to come right out of the wages of union workers who want to force other people to get gouged to pay for.

Let’s call it the “If you want it, YOU effing pay for it!” law.

Has this trend stopped?  Has it even slowed down?  Hell NO:

Over the last 20 years, the average published price for a year of tuition and fees at a private four-year college has increased from $11,719 to $31,231, an increase of 166%, an increase two and a half times the 61% rise in the Consumer Price Index. Adjusting for inflation, the price of tuition and fees has escalated by 67% at four-year private colleges and by 60 percent at two-year public colleges. Reflecting decreased government funding, the price has more than doubled at four- year public colleges. (Trends in College Pricing 2014 p.16) During this same period, the median family income in the U.S., also adjusted for inflation, has increased 5.2% from $51,006 to $53,657, but it has actually declined by more than 7% since 1999 when it peaked at $57,843.

The implications are clear—list price has made a college education appear unattainable to an ever-increasing proportion of the population, as indicated by several recent studies.

If liberals had one shred of honesty or integrity in them, they would have long ago treated colleges and professors like oil companies and CEOs.  But of course they don’t have any decency in them.  So they keep rigging the system to hand colleges and universities more government money and the colleges and universities keep taking that money and jacking up tuitions and expenses.

And Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both loudly demanding we quadruple down on stupid.

Another word for “liberal” is FOOL.  Liberals are fools who keep going back to the same people who keep ripping us off and trusting them so that they’ll keep having better opportunities to rip us off even more.  Whether they turn to union thugs or university Marxists or Hollywood moguls, it’s the same damn mindset doing the same damn thing: pathologically greedy, dishonest hypocrites rigging the system for themselves at the expense of the poor who keep trusting them because they’re stupid, ignorant sheople who have been Pavlovian-trained to a particular flavor of racist, misandrist, ant-religious, anti-moral, fascist demagoguery.

And the left contemptuously knows that they keep coming back to that same Pavlovian formula.  No matter how many times it fails.

So we contemplate the minimum wages that unions fought fang and claw to impose and then absolved and exempted themselves from.

I just want you to consider what even the damn leftist Los Angels Times understands (even as they push for it).  All you have to do is read the full story:

Security guard Kenneth Lofton was among the workers who benefited last year when this East Bay city hiked its hourly minimum wage to nearly $15 for employees at large companies.

The jump was almost 50% more than what he used to make in nearby Oakland when he was paid $10 an hour. But it’s not enough for Lofton, 62, to move closer to work — he still has to commute nearly 20 miles from Hayward and back each day.

“It’s somewhat better, but not much,” Lofton said Tuesday morning while eating breakfast and manning the security gate at an Emeryville parking lot. “The high cost of living here takes a big bite out of whatever monetary increase you get, so it’s like not getting an increase at all.” [….]

A similar scenario played out in Emeryville, where some restaurants have increased prices to make up for the higher minimum wage.

On a Tuesday morning, hip cafe Farley’s is buzzing with young professionals from nearby companies. Despite its popularity, the eatery is still subject to the “razor thin” profit margins common in the food service industry, said co-owner Chris Hillyard.

After Emeryville’s wage increase, Hillyard said he had to increase the price of menu items by 5% to 20%. A roasted turkey and avocado sandwich that once cost $9 is now priced at $10. A latte went up 50 cents, to $4.

Hillyard also had to eliminate two positions from the cafe and end the cafe’s baking program. Farley’s now outsources its baking to a vendor.

“The council had good intentions when it increased the minimum wage, but that was one of the unintended consequences,” Hillyard said.

He said the additional wage hike this July will be difficult, as he’s still trying to navigate where his business is now. Farley’s has 12 employees.

“It’s going to be a challenge because we just raised prices,” Hillyard said. “At some point, we won’t be able to do that because there’s only so much people are willing to spend on a cup of coffee or a sandwich.”

So far, he said, customers haven’t minded the higher prices since they’re comparable to those in nearby Oakland and Berkeley.

Down the street from Farley’s, prices have also gone up at Los Moles, a popular Mexican restaurant.

Chef and owner Lito Saldana said he bumped up the price of every menu item by 10% to offset rising food and labor costs. Prior to the minimum wage increase, he said, Los Moles’ servers made $9 an hour, while kitchen staff averaged $13.50 to $14 an hour.

As costs have risen across the board, Saldana said the minimum wage increase hasn’t helped his employees.

“Even my employees who live in Oakland are saying it is now too expensive for them,” he said.

Seattle workers interviewed by the minimum wage study researchers said they were happy to get the higher wages. For some, it made a “fundamental difference in their quality of life,” said Vigdor, of the university.

At the same time, many workers said they were nervous about whether price increases would eat up their higher paychecks.

“The minimum wage, when it works well, is really a tool for transformational change in people’s lives,” Vigdor said. “And the worry is that it doesn’t always work well.”

The ONLY “successful” example the LA Times could find was a high-end restaurant owner (whose wealthy customers demonstrate how well-to-do they are by paying outrageous prices as a rule) who nevertheless said, “If I have to close some restaurants, so be it. If I have to restructure, so be it. I would rather pay a living wage.”  Versus the rest of the businesses who’d actually prefer to survive and be able to take care of their employees by continuing to provide them a JOB.

The minimum wage law has an incredibly sordid history, just as the progressive left that imposed it in the first place:

When California legislators voted to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022, labor activists cheered. Discounting fears that a $15 minimum might cost some low-wage workers their jobs, activists and their political allies celebrated a victory for fairness and economic justice.

Progressive labor activists took a very different view 100 years ago, when 15 states established America’s first minimum wages. Labor reformers then believed that a legal minimum would hand a raise to deserving white Anglo-Saxon men, and a pink slip to their undeserving competitors: “racially undesirable” immigrants, the mentally and physically disabled, and women. The original progressives hailed minimum-wage-caused job losses among these groups as a positive benefit to the U.S. economy and to Anglo-Saxon racial integrity.

Two overarching characteristics have always been true of progressive activists: 1) they are genuinely evil people and 2) they have always believed in the raw, naked power of their God, the State, to impose their evil on the rest of the country.  Function has always followed form with the left.

Just so you understand what happens when liberals artificially drive up prices by fascist fiat, there’s another article the same day in the same issue of the LA Times.  It begins:

More rent-controlled buildings are being demolished to make way for pricier housing
By Ben Poston and Andrew Khouri•Contact Reporters
April 2, 2016, 3:00 AM

Looking to cash in on a booming real estate market, Los Angeles property owners are demolishing an increasing number of rent-controlled buildings to build pricey McMansions, condos and new rentals, leading to hundreds of evictions across the city.

More than 1,000 rent-controlled apartments were taken off the market last year — a nearly threefold increase since 2013, according to a Times analysis of housing data. Evictions from such units have doubled over the same time.

You jack up the wages by dictatorial fiat, YOU PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING.

AND YOU SHOULD PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING.

It’s just like the colleges and universities that liberals keep giving more billions of dollars to by jacking up the limits of “financial aid”: “Hey, stupid-ass student, you’ve got more borrowed money now, so we can jack up tuition even higher, can’t we?”

And so liberal bureaucrats in cahoots with the colleges say, “Oh, no!  We’d better increase the amount students can borrow.”

And so colleges raise their tuition again.  And then again.  And again and again.

The same vicious cycle has been going on for decades.  And stupid liberals never learn because YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARE STUPID BECAUSE THEY CAN’T LEARN EVEN AFTER THEY’VE MADE THE SAME STUPID MISTAKE FIFTY TIMES.

So here we are artificially jacking up wages.  And it might seem like a boon to those who KEEP their job (it’s not a boon to those who lose their jobs because the wages government liberals force them to pay does not justify that job any more), but it’s an ILLUSION: because the price of everything just got jacked up to pay for the artificial wage increase.

Meanwhile, landlords say, “Oh, you’re earning 50% more?  Well, well, well, I guess that means we can jack up your rent by that amount.”

But will they learn?  Nope.  They’ll just vote for even more Democrats who impose even worse crap until:

And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, “A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day’s pay. And don’t waste the olive oil and wine.” — Revelation 6:6

But that comes after Democrats have already voted for the Antichrist and his mark of the beast where Democrats’ dream government finally seizes total control of the economic system.

Reality’s Response To Obama’s ‘Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction’: Worst Start To A Year In HISTORY

January 20, 2016

Jesus said in John 8:44, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

The thing about depravity is you are perverted in your soul and you cannot see or understand or comprehend reality the way it really, truly is.

It comes down to this: bad people prefer lies.  The souls of the wicked swim in lies.

Which is why Democrats are now ten times more murderous than the Nazis were when it comes to murdering innocent human beings by first denying their humanity and then solving the “problem” that these unwanted “non”-human beings are blamed for.  And you need to understand that the Democrat environmentalists are shouting, “60 million is not enough!!!” Some of them are saying, “We need to kill BILLIONS, not millions!”

And the dots are connected between progressive liberalism, environmentalism, socialism, totalitarianism, and Islam.  They all want the same thing: they all want mass death for the sake of their ideology.

So I have to laugh one of those laughs where you better be careful because it could easily turn into a hysterical crying jag as you confront a level of depravity and deceit that would be ludicrous if it wasn’t so tragic and wasn’t causing so much destruction.

Obama State of the Union Speech, January 12:

 “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.” 

And all I have to say is DON’T TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT PEDDLING FICTION YOU WICKED LIAR!!!

And how did the national economy respond???  What was actually happening as he said those words???

Like this:

U.S. stocks post worst 10-day start to a year in history

Like this:

Stock market slides again, 2016 off to the worst start in Wall Street history

Just so you understand what that means – and how absolutely demonically GODAWFUL Obama truly is for the economy  and for the United States of America – “Wall Street history” dates to May 17, 1792.  So what that above article is actually saying is that Barack Obama has got America off to the worst start in the final year of his presidency – which is really, seriously hard to blame on Bush by now, I think you should agree – in 224 years.

For the record, that’s really bad.

And look at today and understand like THIS:

Oil crash sends Dow diving 500 points
by Matt Egan   @mattmegan5
CNN Money
January 20, 2016: 12:31 PM ET

This is the same, wicked, demon-possessed liar who assured us that Islamic State was “JayVee” AFTER they had sacked and occupied two of the largest cities in Iraq. And then, because there has never been a more dishonest man ever born, he tried to deny that after it became so laughable that even a demoniac liar had to realize how insane it was.

There is NO truth or honesty or virtue or decency or honor or integrity in the heart of this wicked man.

Our economy is in shambles and the only thing we have to say anything is going well is a bunch of bogus statistical shenanigans.  Obama touts a low unemployment record when in actual reality we have the lowest labor participation rate – the measurement of working-age adults who actually have a JOB – in modern history.  I’ve been writing about this since we wickedly and foolishly re-elected this failed sack-of-feces in 2012.  You’ve got to go back to 1977 when Jimmy Carter was failing the world with much the same worldview that Obama has to match that demonically dismal performance.  And just for the record in 1977 a lot of women were married mothers who stayed home and ran the household and raised their children as opposed to now when Democrats have broken the institution of marriage.  People don’t have JOBS; but the way these numbers are cooked, it doesn’t MATTER.

Meanwhile, Obama has spent more money than every single president in history from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.  Meanwhile, what’s our debt?  Our REAL debt?  Is it $18.906 trillion as the national debt clock says it is?  Which by the way is TWICE as much as it was when a hypocrite named Barack Hussein Obama slandered and demonized George Bush for a national debt of over $9 trillion, claiming because of the debt, George Bush was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”

Not even CLOSE.  Because our “official” national debt doesn’t include ANY of the REAL costs that our government has piled on our backs.  You call these things Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now ObamaCare; accountants call them “unfunded liabilities.”  Our true debt is well north of $250 trillion by now, going up by more than $11 trillion each and every year.

But it’s okay, right?  I mean, I’m sure YOU’RE good for it.  You will pay it back and we’ll be fine.  Smooth sailing, right?

We are a house of cards and the wind is starting to pick up.  Oh, and the cards are soaked in gasoline and there are fires starting all over the place.  And the house of cards is built on a major fault line.  And basically every politician in Washington acts like a two-year old racing all around the house of cards.

One day you’re going to wake up and the banks are going to be closed and the money in your wallet is going to be worth less than toilet paper.  And you’ll be stunned because if you’re one of the few people who even bother to tune in to the news, all the mainstream talking heads were assuring you that everything is going to be fine.

We’re going to go down harder, faster and further than any other nation ever has in the entire history of the world.  Because no nation has ever racked up so much debt.  No nation has ever so fundamentally betrayed their own values that made them great to begin with.

The Bible mentions Russia in end-times prophecy; it mentions China.  It never bothers with America.  Because America will be broken and irrelevant in the last days.

For the entire history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics there was nothing but Stalinist pronouncements that had nothing whatsoever to do with reality.  And just before the crash came, the government was blaming seventy years of bad weather for the horrible performance of socialism and the inability to even feed their own people.

And now we’ve got liberals who are every damn bit as socialist doing the same damn thing today.

How’s that socialism working for you?  I mean, it’s sure not working out very well for France, we’re seeing now.  It didn’t work out very well for Greece or for Portugal or for Italy, etc.  It didn’t work out very well for Venezuela with Obama’s pal Hugo Chavez.  Truth to tell, socialism has failed everywhere and every time it’s ever been tried.  But it’s like W.C. Fields observed, “There’s a stupid, ignorant, depraved sucker born every damn minute.”  And combine that with the bumper sticker I saw: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  And so the world keeps making the same stupid mistake over and over and over again.  And what do we have to show for Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” that isn’t terrible???  You want to say ObamaCare, which has amazingly both made healthcare worse AND more expensive at the same damn time???  ObamaCare has utterly FAILED the poor and middle class people Obama swore he was going to help; the whole damn law was nothing but a bait-and-switch windfall to connected insurance companies as both the quality of and access to health care plummeted.  But as long as your mind remains wrapped up in all the lies your soul inhabits, you probably won’t even notice reality until you finally become aware of your empty stomach.  There won’t be anyone to feed you because there won’t be any more food.  And you’ll be looking around, wondering who is going to change your soiled diaper for you, because you never learned how to take care of yourself.

The fact of the matter is that crazy weather is the last-days’ evangelical Christian’s issue, NOT the liberal’s.  Jesus told us there would be terrifying signs in the last days.  God told us in His Word that in His judgment He would send terrifying floods in one place and send savage drought to anotherLook and see what the Bible had to say about the weather in the last days.

Liberals are literally doing the work of Satan, politically exploiting God’s judgment for THEIR wickedness to bring about MORE of the very policies that God is judging!

Soon the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will come.  Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear already hear the echoes of their coming hoofbeats.  They come for YOU, fool.

And then the beast is going to come, the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation.  And he will seem to have an answer for all the chaos of the politicians you worshiped in the past.  And so you will worship him even more fervently than you worshiped Obama.  And you will take his mark of Big Government and Ultimate Socialism and you will eagerly devour the fruit of that ultimate evil.  And then you will burn screaming in hell forever and ever.

 

 

 

On Day Of Obama State Of Union Speech, 1) Iran Seizes US Navy Ships/Crews, 2) Islamic State Murders Again and 3) Uses Syrian Refugee As Weapon

January 12, 2016

Update: We have had reports that the White House officially apologized to Iran in order to cower its way to getting our guys and our stuff back from big mean bully Iran.  The White House denied that it apologized or ordered any apologies.  But … and in complete violation of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces … the US Navy officer in command of the two boats seized made a statement saying of the action in which United States Navy ships were seized and their crews taken prisoner and publicly humiliated: “It was a mistake that was our fault and we apologize for our mistake.”  We now know that the White House had made phone calls to Iran.  And I simply state for the categorical record that unless that lieutenant who made that statement of apology is arrested and prosecuted, the White House told him to apologize to his Iranian captors.

It was nothing short of an unprovoked humiliation of the United States Navy, the United States armed forces, the United States, and every single citizen of the United States.  Even if the official cover story of this bizarre incident is true and one of the ships broke down and wandered into Iranian waters, Iran had NO right to seize the ships and take the crew prisoner (which they very clear did as the pictures I have below document).

This is a national disgrace, just as Barack Hussein Obama is a national disgrace who breeds disgrace the way fecal matter breeds vermin and pestilence.

How about that economy, Obama?  You dishonestly claimed in your SOTU speech, “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”  REALLY?  Anyone who wants to believe that can see how the market responded to Obama’s fiction by tanking 365 points the very next day with the futures market showing all the sings of bloodbath for more days to come.

But it was when Obama started lecturing us on coming together as a nation and ending the division that he was at his very cockroach worst.  Because NOBODY is more responsible for the vicious political climate and the anger and bitterness in America than Barack Hussein Obama.  He SWORE as the CORE of his campaign to “move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.” And as I documented back in 2009, HE BROKE HIS WORD RIGHT AWAY.  And every speech this wicked man has given since has been a version of “my way is the only way and anybody who disagrees with me is evil and I will abrogate the Constitution and impose my will by executive order.”

And I simply state the fact that the vicious political climate in America, with race wars, with Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders shredding both parties, is nothing short of Obama’s poisonous fruit.[End update]

The State of the Union is … actually, quite awful.

We’ve got the lowest labor participation rate in modern history, with fewer working-age adults actually having jobs than at any time since the day of the “stay-at-home-mom” was something called “the norm.”  I have been pointing out this crisis created by Obama’s utterly failed economic policies year after year.  We’ve got 93 percent of all counties in the United States have recovered from the recession that supposedly ended six years ago in terms of jobs, the unemployment rate, GDP, and median home prices.  Only 214 counties of 3,069 in the United States had returned to prerecession levels of prosperity, according to the study reported on by the Wall Street Journal.  Jobs are part-time; Democrats have incentivized part-time jobs because now that you have to work two or even three jobs to make ends meet, Obama gets to claim credit for having created those three jobs.  Wages have tanked under Obama, because of Obama’s policiesEven the SOCIALISTS are pointing that fact out.  And the disparity between the richest and the poorest that Obama and Democrats love to demagogue have grown worse under Obama than any other president in damn history as a result of failed liberal economic policies.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare has caused insurance premiums to soar by 27% and insurance deductibles to skyrocket by 67%.  Which is seven times faster than inflation or wage growth, just so you know.  If that doesn’t tell you enough about the catastrophic effect that ObamaCare has had on medicine or its costs, consider the fact that over HALF of the government-funded ObamaCare co-ops have collapsed, leaving people scrambling to find coverage and leaving taxpayers in a hell-hole.  And the nation’s largest health insurer is saying it is going to pull out of ObamaCare, leaving the entire industry to go into the “death-spiral phase” conservatives were warning about all along.

Seventy percent of Americans say America under Obama is heading in a tragically wrong direction.

Obama is not going to mention ANY negative thing tonight because he is little different than Hitler raving in his bunker at the closing days of World War II just now.

But the thing I really want to most point out are three things that really ought to tell you just how BAD Obama has been for America.  Because as the fool speaks, three things just happened today that you ought to soberly consider:

First, Obama’s buddy Iran just seized two US Navy ships and their crews today.  The US Navy sailors are currently in Iranian custody and shall remain in Iranian custody the entire time our Weasel-in-Chief blathers on tonight.  Iranian propaganda footage displays our Navy personnel on their knees, hands on their heads in surrender, with the lone female sailor forced to wear a hijab in submission to Allah.

Here is a collage of shame I want you to see and soberly evaluate: because Iran just intentionally and deliberately rubbed our nose in our own feces a.k.a. Obama:

Obama Navy Surrendering to Iran

Because of Obama, even our mightiest military heroes are on their knees, with their hands up in submission.  We are weak, we are gutless, we are cowards and every single one of us deserves to have our heads sawed off while we cower on our knees.

Only a few days before Obama’s hoity-toity speech, Iran test-fired several missiles right in the face of US Navy warships in brazen violation of UN security council resolutions.  Recently Iran publicized videos of a formerly secret missile base where they are – again in flagrant violation of UN security council resolutions – developing missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

And we’ve done NOTHING.  Even frightened Democrats are now pushing Obama hard to impose sanctions against Iran, but Obama is a militant ideologue and if doubling down doesn’t work, he will triple down and then quadruple down.

There’s all kinds of frenzy over the $1.5 billion Powerball lottery, but Iran hit the ultimate lottery when Obama came to power; they now have $150 billion to fund their nuclear program, to fund their ballistic missile program, to fund terrorism.

The United States of America has all the international prestige of a plastic bag filled with diarrhea poop thanks to this presidency.

Second, Islamic State just murdered another ten people as they continue their international murder spree in Paris, in San Bernardino, in Philadelphia, pretty much anywhere they want.  Today they sent a suicide bomber to murder in Turkey.

Obama has utterly failed not only America but the WORLD as terrorism has skyrocketed because of his total, abject failure to do a damn thing beyond politically demagogue it as “gun violence.”  Deaths from terrorism have QUADRUPLED as of 2014 under Obama’s watch.  And you aint seen NOTHIN’ yet because we are watching the whole Islamic world just melt down and collapse at the seams: from 2009 to 2013, terrorism exploded by 150 percent.  And just this past year 2014 over the previous, it exploded by another 81 percent.  And when they compile the apocalyptic statistics of terrorism for 2015, you will see that already frightening trend become truly terrifying.

But third, do you know who Islamic State sent to do that suicide bomb terror attack?  When the cameras highlight the Syrian refugee Obama invited, just realize that he may very well be the next suicide bomber in a US shopping mall tomorrow.  Because the terrorist they sent was a Syrian refugee who had “newly (come) into Turkey from Syria.”

As you consider Obama’s invited guest from Syria tonight, just realize that he literally wants to bring in 60,000 possible mass-murdering terrorists and that nobody can vet these people.

I want you to realize something: the same demon-possessed FOOL who called Islamic State a “JayVee” team and then dishonestly tried to deny saying it is the same demon-possessed FOOL who now demands we bring in Syrian refugees when Islamic State has already boasted they had infiltrated the refugees and when we now have MULTIPLE incidents of “Syrian refugees” being terrorists who have murdered civilians around the world.  There is absolutely nothing of the real, actual world in Obama; he is a demon-possessed man who is utterly and completely lost and is in the process of imploding what had been the mightiest nation in the history of the world but is now prepared to join the graveyard of former great empires.

Under Obama, BECAUSE of Obama, our Navy is the smallest since World War I, our Army is the smallest since before World War II, and our Air Force fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its entire history.

And we are LOSING the war on terror in huge, giant swaths.  Even the general Obama just picked to lead the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) – the ONLY military entity that Obama is even allowing to do anything at all – says of Obama’s non-war against what he won’t call Islamic terror, “We’re losing across the board. Across the board we’re not winning.”

The State of the Union is cancerous.  And this nation is sick and on the verge of death by Obammunism.

‘Most Hated CEO In America’ Who Skyrocketed Price Of HIV Drug WAS A DEMOCRAT WHO DONATED TENS OF THOUSANDS TO DEMOCRATS

December 21, 2015

You listen to the Democrats debate (okay, the three of you who do, given that the DNC has done EVERYTHING to protect their Fuehrer, Hillary Clinton, from any scrutiny by sandwiching debates into THE worst time slots – for example, the first Saturday night of Christmas Vacation, the next one being on a night with two NFL playoff games) and you hear the Democrat candidates utterly fail to explain things such as:

With all of those questions that Democrats don’t have to give a fig about answering and any “answer” they give would be in a debate that the DNC has intentionally done everything possible to prevent anyone from wanting to watch, anyway (see here and here), something interesting has emerged:

Is it REALLY “evil Republican corporations” that are screwing you, America?

Nope.

Let’s look at a truly horrible man:

Martin Shkreli: The ‘most hated man in America’ is raising the price of another form of drug
The news comes just after he raises the price of an effective HIV drug by more than 5000 per cent 
Will Grice ||
Saturday 12 December 2015|

The man who increased the cost of an effective HIV drug by 5,500 per cent has now increased the price of another form of medicine.

Martin Shkreli has now increased the price of a medicine used to treat Chagas disease, a parasitic infection that can cause heart failure.

Mr Shkreli’s company, Turing Pharmacuticals, previously acquired the rights to the anti-HIV drug, Daraprim, before increasing the price from $13.50 to  $700.

This time Mr Shkreli has bought a majority share in KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, allowing him to apply for exclusive selling rights to KaloBios’ benznidazole, a common drug used to treat Chigas in South America, where it is very prevelant.

It is reported by the New York Times that benznidazole currently costs between $50 to $100 for two months worth of treatment.

However the New York Times believe that the cost could soon be similar to that of a hepatitis C drug, which costs anywhere between $60,000 and $100,000 per course of treatment.

It is estimated 300,000 in the United States have Chagas disease

So here – and certainly in the demonization of Democrats be they Obama or Hillary Clinton – have the epitomy of everything that is wrong with corporate America.

The news has trickled out (the propaganda media doing everything possible to keep a lid on yet another giant Democrat scandal).  But back in September this:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee took $33,400 from Big Pharma’s big jerk Martin Shkreli

You may have read about Turing Pharmaceuticals owner Martin Shkreli being a total jerk on social media in response to his company raising the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a medical condition that can be fatal to people with AIDS and developing fetuses, from $13.50/pill to a whopping $750/pill. If not, you can read about it here.

However, when I was looking on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website about political donations that Martin Shkreli made, I managed to find one political donation that I am 100% certain is of Turing Pharmaceuticals’s Martin Shkreli, and that is a $33,400 donation that Shkreli made to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) on July 18th of this year

The leftist organization Move On made it official:

Martin Shkreli, the hedge fund manager and Turing Pharmaceuticals owner who claimed that raising the price of Daraprim, a medication used to treat toxoplasmosis, a medical condition that can be fatal for people with AIDS, from $13.50/pill to a whopping $750/pill would be a “great thing for society”, donated $33,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

In light of Shkreli’s overt greed and attacks against those who oppose price-gouging in the prescription drug industry, we, the signatories of this petition, call for the DSCC to donate $33,400 to charity.

And another leftwing operation also reported the following:

“Most Hated Man in America” Martin Shkreli Was Just Arrested for Alleged Securities Fraud
—By Inae Oh | Thu Dec. 17, 2015 8:46 AM EST
Martin Shkreli, the 32-year-old pharmaceuticals executive who landed in the news in September for price-gouging a life-saving drug by a staggering 5,000 percent, was arrested on Thursday for alleged securities fraud.

Bloomberg reports federal agents arrested the Turing CEO at his Manhattan home. He is now being accused of taking money from a previous drug company he founded in 2011, Retrophin Inc., to cover unrelated debts.

The arrest comes just months after reports first surfaced accusing Shkreli of hiking the price of Daraprim, a parasite-killing drug used to treat patients with HIV or cancer, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Outrage over the price hike prompted multiple headlines declaring him the “most hated man in America.”

Shkreli soon promised to drop the drug’s price to a “point that is more affordable” and that would allow the company to make a “very small profit.” It became quickly apparent, however, that he never intended to follow through on that promise…

So let’s just PLEASE dispense with the cockroach liberal rhetoric that the massive escalation of healthcare costs is somehow due to “Republican greed.”

You desperately need to understand that ultimately “Democrats” – which I rightly claim stands for “DEMOn-possessed bureauCRATS” – are FASCISTS.  And when you consider the fascist economic model, you will see why I say that.  Wikipedia points out that:

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5]

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics provides this:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Liberal intellectuals dishonestly try to claim that “fascism” and “Nazism” were somehow “right wing” or “conservative” and they are just flat-out LIARS.  And in point of fact these academics are actually merely Marxist plants who are doing nothing more than mouthing the official party line of hard-core STALINISTS:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

In other words, to be a “fascist” is to be a “socialist” and to be a “socialist” is to be a damn LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT.  If you are a “Democrat,” you are by definition someone who wants to use government power to impose winners and losers rather than allowing any free market laissez-faire system to do that; you are in favor of “requiring” businesses to jump through your hoops in order to implicitly attain control over the means of production; you want a planned society with the façade appearance of a free market.  In other words, if you are a Democrat, you are a fascist and you are just either too dishonest or too damn stupid to admit it.

I’m not merely pointing out the fact that the worst corporate turd who stands for everything the Democrat Party claims to hate is a hard-core Democrat; I’m pointing out that everything about the entire Democrat-fascist philosophy is oriented toward giving birth to turds like Shkreli.

But most people are never really going to know this because they have become apathetic sheep and because the mainstream media as the propaganda machine of the Democrat Party does not want you to know this.

I am watching a demonic-delusion being passed over the American people.  Terrorism UNDER OBAMA skyrocketed 150% the first five years of his administration between 2009 and 2013.  That skyrocketing rate turned into a rocket-ship rate as terrorism under Obama soared 81% last year over 2013.  UNDER OBAMA, murders from terrorism quadrupled to this point.  And whether you’re talking about terrorist attacks or the deaths from those attacks, I guarantee you that you haven’t seen ANYTHING yet as both EXPLODED this year over last.

UNDER Obama, the international refugee crisis has absolutely EXPLODED.  We have literally never seen more refugees at any time in the entire documented history of the human race.

But what do Democrats do?  They blame Bush, they say it’s all Republicans’ fault; and militantLY and wickedly refuse to consider the calamitous results of THEIR policies as Obama pursued a policy that Republicans have stated for YEARS would lead to catastrophe and which have clearly led to catastrophe just as they rightly predicted.

And they’re trying to do the same damn thing with the economy, with jobs, with wages, with income inequality, that they’ve wickedly done with foreign policy.

Literally, THE MORE THEY FAIL, THE MORE THEY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN EVEN MORE TOTAL GOVERNMENT POWER TO FAIL STILL MORE.

Democrat Debate Showed All You Need To Be A Democrat Is A Radical Contempt For Reality

October 14, 2015

It was amazing to see this debate.  CNN deliberately – out of their blatant bias – engineered their shot at the Republican debate to force Republicans to attack each other.  Every single question they asked in the Republican debate was, “Why don’t you think your opponent should be the next president?”

Many of the questions were framed in a way designed to encourage candidates to criticize other candidates’ positions on issues (or nonissues) rather than addressing issues themselves. (Others disagree with you. What do you think?! was the general thrust of the questioning.) “Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the $100 million you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?” Tapper asked Jeb Bush early on in the debate. There is no possible world in which that question could ever elicit an interesting or valuable answer.

But did CNN follow their own, let’s make the candidates eat each other and enjoy the Republican-on-Republican violence we ginned up?  Nope.

[…] Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

“Look, these are all serious people,” explained Cooper. “This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that.”

This is a rabidly biased “journalist” from a rabidly biased “news network.”  He’s telling us that Republicans have zero-point-zero interests in talking about issues, that really all they wanted to do was personally attack each other, and for some reason he had no problem being “uncomfortable” when he did to Republicans what he said he absolutely was NOT going to do to the Democrats.  Because, after all, according to Anderson Cooper, Democrat candidates “are all serious people.”  Whereas the governors and senators and incredibly successful field of Republicans are all clowns by simple definition of liberal demagogic ideology.

So what I’m telling you is that from the very outset, this debate was a JOKE.

And the result was it was boring and changed NOTHING.  Hillary Clinton got sheltered when she should have been shellacked.  And that was the plan.  I suppose that’s what “no fireworks” meant; the purpose of this debate from the ideological plotters and schemers was to reinforce whatever preconceived script they wanted to.

So there weren’t any seriously tough questions asked of the Democrats that they didn’t want to answer the way Republicans are asked tough questions that they don’t want to answer.  There also aren’t anywhere near as many debates for fascist Democrats who at this time in their wretched, degenerate existence despise free speech as there are for Republicans.

The debates were rigged from the outset to benefit the presumed queen empress of the space-time universe.

“Four debates. Four debates. Four debates, and only four debates. We are told—not asked—before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said on Friday. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.” […]

O’Malley says the DNC is only doing this to protect Clinton, and O’Malley isn’t alone in this theory. Sen. Bernie Sanders is unhappy as well.

“I believe at a time when so many people have given up on the political process, when 80 percent of people did not vote in the last election, 63 percent of the people did not vote, I believe that debates are a good thing,” Sanders said.

Democrats are by nature fascists and didn’t want to allow too many debates which would have allowed a challenger to rise and begin to threaten the selection by the Stalinist DNC – which is led by a fascist woman who implicitly acknowledged that there is ZERO difference between a “Democrat” and a “socialist” today.

“What is the difference,” between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism Meet The Press host Chuck Todd asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democrats. “Can you explain the difference?”

Again, she will not answer, following her non-answer to the same question on Thursday’s episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Nobody had to answer much during the staged Democrat debate on CNN.  That’s for sure.

As an example, I don’t recall very many questions about Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy article that is just beyond creepy.  The left and their media lackeys couldn’t care less; that kind of awfulness very clearly only matters if the candidate is a Republican.  I mean, I’m sorry; Joy Behar of the ABC program The View gushed that Bernie Sanders is sexy; but aside from the fact that socialists are pathologically creepily in love with their masters (whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Bill Clinton or Obama or Sanders), it’s rather obvious that to put it in Sanders’ words, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’’

The CNN debate had the premise, “Let’s not all reveal what pieces of garbage all we liberals are.”

I remember the last decent Democrat named John F. Kennedy.  I remember his saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  Today to be a true Democrat means screaming, “NO!  SCREW this country.  TAKE from it!  FORCE it to give to you!  Do NOTHING for it but take and take and TAKE from it until it collapses so we can impose the communism that the American founding fathers would have rather died more deaths than Obama’s debt to stop.  Because to be a damned Democrat is to hate the United States of America so much it is beyond unreal.  Prominent Democrat Party members say the goal is socialismLiberal academia say the goal is communism.  The liberal ACLU says the goal is communism.  The powerful liberal labor union SEIU says the goal is communismThe entire Obama presidency has been one to use manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis to impose a Stalinist dictatorship of government-by-executive order.

There were no questions about the sixty million abortions every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for.  No questions about the fact that to be a Democrat today means to be a sodomy-worshiping pervert who sticks his or her middle finger up at the God of the Bible and shrieks, “F*ck YOU!  Bring your wrath that you tell us about in Romans chapter one ON, God!  Give us raging floods and storms in one place and burning drought in another according to Amos 4:7.  We’ll just blame Your wrath on Republicans!”

I wish there were some religious questions, such as, “How do you respond to Jesus’ narrow, exclusivist statement of John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one can come to the Father except through Me.”  I’d like to hear the candidates deal with the question, “Why has the Democrat Party so rabidly turned against Jesus Christ and the moral teachings of the Bible?”  But no.

There was one question that exposed the complete cowardice of the Democrat Party today.  Anderson Cooper asked each candidate to respond to the question, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?”  And there was only ONE candidate on the stage – and no Democrat will vote for him because to be a Democrat is to be a toxically depraved human being – who answered that all lives matter.  That’s because to be a Democrat is to be an abject SLAVE to your party’s special interest, to your party’s rabid leftist base.

And so a good follow-up question would have been, “Why don’t you believe that white lives matter in America today?  Just why is it that you were such a damn, miserable COWARD to answer that last question the way you did, you despicable political weasels?”  But no.

No questions about how encouraging entire generations of Democrats to be welfare parasites for the incredibly cynical purpose of trying to force them to vote Democrat for life is “doing what you can for your country” rather than “not asking what your country can do for you.”

But that would be about actual reality.  And to be a Democrat is to be a snarling hater of reality.

So no real questions about how all the Democrats on the platform seem to be channeling the uber-leftist message that more Obamaesque policies will somehow lead to “social justice” and end income inequality when Obama’s damn policies have done more to make actual income inequality worse than any and all presidents before him.

There were no questions about why all the Democrat candidates vying for Obama’s ninth through twelfth years in office are making the horror of income inequality a primary issue in the seventh damn year of Obama.  What exactly did Democrats do to solve income inequality when Barack Obama was Democrat president, Harry Reid was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Democrat Speaker of the House?  They made it worse than George W. Bush EVER made itEven the damn Obama White House’s own Economic Advisors’ Report acknowledges that Obama has exploded income inequality.  We just came out with a jobs report that features the lowest labor participation rate in the work force in 38 years.  I mean, “Yes, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1 percent, but only because the workforce shrank by 300,000 or so.”  Which is a direct quote from PBS about the last jobs report.  But that’s reality.

And Democrats hate reality more than they love life.

So Democrats can explode a problem into a crisis and then exploit the crisis they create to slander and lie and demonize everybody but themselves.  Nobody has a job because they have regulated jobs out of existence.  But now they can exploit the fact that they destroyed all the jobs to blame those greedy, rich people should go bankrupt being forced to pay wages and benefits they can’t possibly afford to pay while they’re being forced to spend exorbitantly to conform to regulations they can’t possibly conform to.

And stupid people who despise reality believe their lies.

The labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – has SHOCKINGLY PLUNGED under the wicked, depraved, foolish, idiotic policies of Democrat fascist socialist statism.  Even the New York Times is forced to call Obama’s last jobs report “grim.”  Because he has wildly FAILED.

No significant questions about Hillary Clinton’s private server or the pathologically fascist, paranoid and secretive shrew she had to have been and continues to remain in order to install one in the first place.  I would have loved to see Anderson Cooper treat the Democrat candidates like Republicans with questions such as, “Would you have installed a private email server and obliterated all legitimate transparency and accountability by purging your communications AFTER they had been lawfully subpoenaed?  Would YOU have risked national security by throwing out over 400 top-secret emails without adequate protections the way Hillary Clinton did?  Would you endorse right now every single Republican politician and appointee being able to install private servers in their homes to avoid accountability the way Hillary Clinton was able to do?  Do you believe there ought to be such a thing as transparency and accountability as Hillary Clinton very clearly does not?  Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there ought to be one standard for her and a vastly different one for everyone else?  Or do you agree with Hillary Clinton as when Americans are being murdered under her watch, “What difference does it make?”

But no.  That would be dealing with reality.  And you’re not allowed to be a Democrat unless you have fang-dripping hatred for reality.

Bernie Sanders suggests that he was not being political when he said that his rival’s emails ought to be off-limits in the debate.  That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders being decent or courageous; it’s because he recognizes that Democrats frankly are miserable, wicked, depraved moral scum who don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who broke the law and horrifyingly violated our national security and belongs in prison.  He said what he said because he knew that the same damn perverted cowards who would have booed him if he’d had the courage and the decency to say that all lives matter would also have booed him if he pointed out Hillary Clinton’s crimes.

Because to a Democrat, abject, despicable moral COWARDICE masquerades for courage.  Which is why Democrats stupidly believe that Barack Obama is actually brave to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who freed Hitler to unleash hell by his abject failure to stand up and have any kind of a backbone when the world desperately needed one in the days leading up to World War II.

No questions about our national debt and how it has exploded under Barack Obama and what Democrat presidents would do to reduce it rather than explode it even more.  No question of how Barack Obama wasn’t the worst hypocrite in the history of the entire universe when he demonized George Bush with these words on July 3, 2008 because George Bush had disgustingly added $4 trillion to the national debt:

Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

No questions about the fact that Barack Obama has now more than doubled Bush’s debt after hypocritically demonizing him for it and no questions about the fact that by the time Obama leaves office, he will personally have added more to the debt than every single U.S. president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.

Because to be a Democrat is to be so viciously hateful toward reality it is beyond unreal.

But wouldn’t that have been a good question: “How in the hell are you going to do all this leftist socialist crap and not bankrupt America?  Or are you going to be the same sort of rabid, demon-possessed LIAR the last Democrat president was and vomit out an ocean of lies?

No significant questions about the rise and spread of the threat of Islamic State or the caliphate Barack Obama’s foolish and depraved policies allowed them to carve out of a country where Obama once took credit for securing and a country where Obama once issued an infamous “red line” that he subsequently allowed his enemies to walk all over.

Because if you’re a Democrat you truly don’t give one flying DAMN about the actual state of the world.  You are a demon-possessed fool who lives in a web of lies spun by worse fools who are even more demon-possessed.

Meanwhile, the same ISIS that has owned Syria is now advancing on Baghdad.  And somehow Obama’s idiotic Democrat Party rhetoric is not stopping the screaming jihadists armed with heavy weapons.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s just pretend that if we’re really, really nice to them and disarm our military capacity and bare our throats to their knives, they’ll see we’re no threat to them and leave us alone.  Because I’m a Democrat and I’ve never actually so much as touched actual reality in my entire useless life.

Listening to the Democrats on the stage, you got a vivid picture of why everything has melted down in the world: George W. Bush.  Seven years after he left office, he is STILL the ONLY actual leader who is to be held responsible for ANYTHING in America.  On their presentation, the world was idyllic and wonderful before Bush came along.  We were at peace and harmony with all living things.  And then the devil Bush came along and plunged America into war.  And even is spite of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the true Messiah, come to save us from not having a nanny-state government that will wipe our filthy bottoms for us, he has not been able to overcome the wicked work of the devil Bush.

Gosh, you’d have to seriously hate reality to not remember that Democrats very clearly agreed with George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein DID in FACT have weapons of mass destruction that needed to be dealt with. Democrats like then-president Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued crystal-clear statements that Saddam Hussein had WMD going back a full three years before George W. Bush assumed office:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Let’s just use our power of liberalism to whitewash reality and smear it with whatever fecal matter that has been crammed into our heads that Hillary Clinton was just ONE of the Democrats who acknowledged Bush’s legitimacy in going to war after the United States was massively attacked on 9/11/2001.  Let’s just forget that Hillary Clinton AFTER Bush had invaded Iraq in response to the 9/11 attack said:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. — Sen. Hillary Clinton

Just consider how completely full of lies the Democrat narrative as presented on that staged stage last night truly revealed themselves to be.  On their warped, wicked, presentation of “reality,” all the 9/11 terrorists DIDN’T come into America when Bill Clinton was president.  Even though in actual reality ALL the 9/11 terrorists came into America while the president of the United States’ initials were W.J.C.  rather than G.W.B.

There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole and other debacles that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“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

Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he could have easily killed Osama bin Laden.  But bin Laden was just one more Clinton mess to leave for the hated Republican administration.  So to hell with it.

Bill Clinton left was the president who left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

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.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse and a recession that was very nearly every bit as bad as the one in 2008 that Democrats used to pervert their way to power.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 economic crash.  But hey, that crash that Bill Clinton’s policies directly fed gave Democrats an excuse to say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  So it was all good to the DNC.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

So that was the world before George W. Bush attacked Iraq.  And Democrats are truly demon-possessed to demonize him the way they do.

But let’s now cut to after the war.  Let’s point out for the damn factual record the REALITY that George W. Bush left office as a VICTOR in that war in Iraq.

Joe Biden admitted it:

“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.” — Vice President Joe Biden

Barack Obama admitted it and even celebrated it:

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009

Even al Qaeda in Iraq itself acknowledged that George W. Bush had won the war in Iraq:

By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters. — General Jack Keane

There is ZERO question that the war in Iraq – a war Democrats supported before treasonously turning against it because the Democrat Party is the PARTY of treason- was WON by the time Obama metastasized his way into the presidency.

Let’s go back to 2009 and see what Barack Obama did treasonously undermined EVERYTHING our generals and military commanders deeply believed we needed to do:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Barack Obama didn’t have to leave Iraq.  HE WANTED TO IN SPITE OF ANY AND ALL WISDOM WHATSOEVER.

And a bloodbath has happened as a direct result of a pathologically wicked Democrat president of a pathologically wicked Democrat Party.

Let’s consider what President George W. Bush PREDICTED if a wicked fool like Barack Obama pursued his wicked foolishness:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President George W. Bush

Bush was right.  Reality is a witness.  And Democrats need to be hunted down with dogs and burned alive if we are to have any chance of survival as a nation.

You listen to the morally diseased Democrat cockroaches who were spreading their filth on that stage last night and it was George W. Bush who somehow created the absolute meltdown in Syria.

First of all, it wasn’t George W. Bush who created the instability in Syria.  It was Barack Obama’s evil Federal Reserve policies that essentially created food riots.  Because the United States is – but won’t be for much longer, thanks to Obama’s fiscal insanity – the world’s Reserve Currency, all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars.  And Obama’s fiscal policies ended up poisoning the currencies in poorer Middle Eastern countries as food prices skyrocketed relative to purchasing power.  Which the leftist mainstream media due to their own failure to comprehend reality had the moral idiocy to call “the Arab Spring” like it was somehow a good thing.  They were riots because people were starving because Barack Obama has failed the entire planet so abysmally.

Then there was Obama’s “red line” fiasco after the food riots dissolved Syria into brutal civil war that has now claimed about a quarter of a million lives while Obama dithered.  It was such a fiasco that Obama being the pathological liar and coward that he is claimed he didn’t say it.  Without any question to any rational mind capable of waking up and smelling the real world emboldened our worst enemies.

Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen more than a year and a half ago prophetically wrote an article with this title:

Obama’s weakness emboldens Putin

That article – written not yesterday but more than a year and a half ago – ends with these words:

Today, America is projecting weakness. Obama’s failure to enforce his red line in Syria projected weakness. His constant talk of withdrawal and ending wars so we can focus on “nation-building here at home” projects weakness. His decision to gut the U.S. defense budget and reduce the Army to pre-World War II levels projects weakness.

When your adversaries believe you are weak, they are emboldened to act — and prone to miscalculate. Putin believes there will be no real costs for his intervention in Ukraine because there were no costs in Syria. He knows the Obama Doctrine is to do just enough “not to get mocked.” If he is proved right, it will have consequences far beyond the Crimean Peninsula. A failure to impose costs on Russia will further embolden adversaries from Beijng to Pyongyang to Tehran — all of whom are measuring Obama’s resolve in Ukraine, just as Putin measured Obama’s resolve in Syria and found it lacking.

You tell me how Thiessen wasn’t right now that Putin just swarmed into Syria, ordered the United States it had better stay the hell clear from them unless Obama wanted to get punched right in the mouth, and proceeded to start killing all of the few remaining U.S. allies in the region that we had left.  As Russia just snarled, “The Middle East is OURS now, America.  Get out, you pathetic little weasel coward Obama turds!”  And that is exactly what we’ve done.  Just as we’ve gotten out of the largest trading route in the world as China built an island and then militarized that island in the South China Sea while Obama did NOTHING because he has no credible threat whatsoever.

And we did it because Russia with Putin has demonstrated that he has the spine to fight and Barack Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is a pathetic coward who will NOT risk losing the support of his rabid leftist base that yearns for America to suffer terrible defeat so they can exploit the next crisis.  Nobody believes that weak little coward pussy will do anything no matter how much our worse enemies humiliate us or walk all over us.

And Democrats have the Lucifer in them to say that was Bush’s fault.

Everything about this debate was nothing but a sick joke.

But there is no possibility of any kind of actual “debate” when you have liars debating liars about whose lies sell to the membership of the most stupid and most depraved and most demonic party in the history of the world.

 

 

 

Liberals Don’t CARE About The Poor And Disadvantaged They Cynically Exploit

August 25, 2015

How do liberals hate and despise you, poor people?  Let me count the ways (in no particular order):

First, there is illegal immigration.  What does it do?  Does opening the floodgate of illegal immigration to pour over the United States help legal immigrants?  Absolutely NOT.  It suppresses wages for legal poor minorities.  This is simply something called a “fact.”  “Illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available.”  There is something called THE LAW of supply and demand: the greater the supply of something, the less the demand for that thing and the more the value of it goes down as a result.  This is literally again A LAW that will ALWAYS happen in ANY economic situation with no exceptions.  You cannot continue to increase the supply of something and have that thing continue to go up in economic value: the exact OPPOSITE will happen.  And so, for U.S. blacks, for example, we find that “six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.”  Again, the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and job opportunities for legal poor immigrants and minorities is simply a FACT.

It simply boils down to this question: how – and I defy a liberal to explain this to me – does bringing in more poor people to compete with the poor people already here for a limited number of jobs – do anything other than undermine the poor people who are already here???

Liberals tell us about migrant field laborers and how nobody else will do those jobs.  This argument is contingent upon your being stupid enough to believe that every single illegal immigrant is out in the fields picking our crops and no illegal immigrants have any other kind of job.  They idiotically overlook the fact that most agricultural zones are considerable distances from the urban population centers – so there is simply no one reasonably close enough to take those jobs.  And the migrant laborers largely live in deplorable conditions and, yes, MIGRATE to the various fields to do the jobs.  And they send a great deal of the money they earn back home to their families in other countries such as Mexico.  That’s one thing.  But another thing is that it is simply a categorical fact today that MOST, IF NOT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT IN THE FIELDS.  THEY ARE WORKING JOBS THAT AMERICAN POOR PEOPLE DO WANT TO WORK.  My church has a Hispanic congregation.  Many of them are not here legally.  I know many of these people.  I know what many of them do for a living.  Very FEW of them EVER work in ANY field around these parts.  No, they are home care assistants, they are tree trimmers, they are construction workers, they are contractors, they cut our hair.  And they are in stores and businesses working in jobs that YES LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND POOR MINORITIES WOULD HAVE TAKEN.

So I ask the question again: how do Democrats do ANYTHING other than undermine and hurt the poor when they demand that more poor people be allowed to keep flowing in to compete for the scarce jobs here???

Why did liberals open the floodgate of illegal immigration?  Why do they stupidly refuse to see the obvious and crystal-clear distinction between “legal” immigrants and “ILLEGAL” immigrants?  Because there is absolutely ZERO question that the Democrat Party politically and incredibly cynically benefits from a violation of the law that undermines the nation as a whole.  And Democrats are nothing if they are not political cockroaches who crawl to any and every dung pile that feeds them.  It is a simple fact that Hispanics as a whole overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so therefore the more illegal immigrants – especially given the fact that Democrats have made it IMPOSSIBLE to prevent people from registering to vote and from voting illegally – the better for Democrats.  And Democrats couldn’t give less of a DAMN if what they are doing hurts the people who they are keeping ignorant enough to keep voting for them.  Democrats count on ignorance and they count on their ability to keep ignorant people on their plantation through propaganda that has ALWAYS been the tool for abusive governments to control their people.

So Democrats actively pursue political strategies that suppress wages for poor people.  This is a FACT.  And what do they DO about the crisis they created?  Why create ANOTHER crisis, of course.

So second, there is the outcry to forcibly raise minimum wages as the left exploits one crisis it created in order to create another crisis.  We therefore have the movement to artificially and forcibly raise wages by government fiat.  But does that create more jobs and therefore more opportunity or does it do what common sense ought to tell you it does and do the precise OPPOSITE:

In a National Bureau of Economic Research paper published last December, University of California-San Diego professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither, found that increases in the minimum wage were responsible for 14% of the decline in the percent of the working-age population employed between 2006 and 2012. Minimum wage increases significantly reduced the probability of low-skill workers reaching the middle class.

This is simply a fact validated by study after study.  Employers – faced with paying artificially high wages, will either go to higher-skilled and therefore more productive labor or they will switch to machines to do jobs that used to be cost-effective for low-skilled workers to do before liberals destroyed those jobs with their stupid demagogic policies.

Aside from the fact that forcing employers to pay more money than they can afford or that the job they would otherwise offer is worth to them, you have another giant dilemma of unintended consequences: artificially imposing higher labor costs ipso facto means imposing higher prices for products and services that poor people have to pay:

… it’s a safe bet that virtually all of the cost of this minimum wage hike will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. You might think that, well, this isn’t a huge deal if it’s rich people who are paying these higher prices.

But of course it will often be poor people who pay them…  This makes poor consumers worse off in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.”

Another term for that is “vicious cycle.”  We artificially impose higher wages which artificially increases prices, which makes goods and services artificially more expensive to pay those higher wages, which reduces consumers’ ability to purchase those goods and services, which reduces the amount of goods and services purchased, which undermines the job market further.  And further.

It’s an easy bogus case to make for demagogues: we’ll force other people to pay you more money.  Nothing could be easier.  The sad fact – “sad” because liberals hate and despise facts – is this: the BEST way to have a good, well-paying job is to start out in a lousy, sucky-paying job and work your way UP as you demonstrate and document a good work ethic and develop more experience.  But when there are fewer and fewer jobs available because fewer and fewer employers can afford to pay for more workers, well, so much for hard work and experience.

And so we have a THIRD way Democrats hatefully hurt the poor: income inequality.

Income inequality, you say?  Isn’t that a Democrat issue?  Aren’t Democrats campaigning to end this hateful disparity of income and wealth that Republicans want to maintain?  Why yes, at least, if you are a truly stupid, ignorant, propaganda-fed sheep.  In fact, income inequality has EXPLODED under Barack Obama’s liberal economic policies.  It is a FACT that Barack Obama has taken America back to Great Depression-levels of income inequality.  Yes, I said FACT: under Obama and because of Obama, income inequality is the WORST since 1928.  Why is this?  Well, we can go to Obama’s supermassive debtDeficit spending necessarily ultimately forces internal devaluation, which deflates worker wages.  Wealthier people can invest and stave off this debt-inflation which eats the poor alive.  We can go back to illegal immigration again: “illegal immigration exacerbates income inequality by adding mostly low-wage earners and thereby, depressing wages for those workers. This is especially harmful to minorities — often immigrants themselves — that have larger shares of their populations living in poverty.”

Here’s another nuance of this vicious income inequality for you: poor people tend to try to save toward a better life; wealthy people tend to invest their wealth.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party machine have created a giant debt apparatus that sucks savings.  What interest do you get when you put your money in the bank?  You get ZERO.  Poor people cannot afford to invest and make money the only way the Obama-Democrat-debt machine have built for someone to make money off his or her money.  They have created a system – and keep in mind that Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama in both of his elections – where the Fed keeps pumping money into the system and the banks lend it at low rates to the big businesses.  But if you are poor, if you are on a fixed income, Obama has left you high and dry.

Democrats are simply vile, venal people: they create godawful pain, they literally take a 2X4 and viciously whack somebody on the back of the head, and then they blame the nearest Republican knowing that their ideological counterparts in the mainstream media will duly report the “fact” that Republicans are responsible for the crimes perpetuated over and over and over again by Democrats.  It’s called propaganda, and it’s the one and only thing the left has always excelled in.

Poverty and homelessness has skyrocketed under the cancer of the Obama presidency.  Poverty has smashed a fifty year record under ObamaHomelessness is skyrocketing. And you should stop wondering why.  But whose fault is it?  Well, gosh, we can’t blame Bush anymore, so it’s got to be the Republican Congress’ fault, doesn’t it?  I mean, yes, we blamed Bush for the economic meltdown even though Democrats were in lock-step control of both the House and the Senate because the president is responsible.  Unless of course the president is a demagogic Democrat and then Congress is responsible even when it held only one branch of government.

And so fourth, let’s talk about how incredibly cynical and depraved Democrats are in regards to homelessness.  There’s a New York Post story with a picture of a man urinating right in the middle of a public street.  The title says it all: “20 Years of Cleaning Up New York City Pissed Away.”  It is absolutely pathetic and despicable what Democrats have done to piss away progress and decency.  Back when Mayor Rudy Giuliani led New York, for example, the police took an active and proactive role in dealing with homelessness.  They would show up with a social worker and not only get that person off the streets, but also HELP that person.  But liberals, being hateful, said, no, no, no, these people have a right to be here, blah-blah-blah.  The didn’t view them as human beings who needed real help, but as ideological abstractions and as pawns in a leftwing propaganda war.

Here’s an article that perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about:

Team Obama’s fight to keep the homeless living on the streets
By Betsy McCaughey
August 18, 2015 | 8:07pm

America’s homeless are lawyering up to fight for a “right” to live on the street — your neighborhood and personal safety be damned.

From Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles, cities are struggling with a surge in people living in cardboard boxes and doorways. Local lawmakers are trying to ban “camping out” in public, and ordering police to clear the fetid encampments.

But lawyers for the homeless are pushing back. They’re demanding that “sleeping rough” be legally protected. In Denver, where living on the street is outlawed, lawyers for the homeless want to guarantee vagrants “the right to use and move freely in public spaces without discrimination.”

Outrageously, the Obama administration is siding with vagrants against local governments. Obama’s Justice Department is trying to block Boise, Idaho’s ban on sleeping in public. Cities around the country are worried their own laws may be next.

Not New York, of course. In our city, lawyers for the homeless already run City Hall. One of Mayor De Blasio’s top advisers is Steven Banks, a lawyer who spent three decades at the Legal Aid Society and has sued the city numerous times on behalf of the homeless.

Under de Blasio’s tenure, 311 calls complaining about the homeless are up nearly 60 percent. The mayor dismisses that as “hysteria,” insisting the vast majority of homeless “don’t bother anybody.”

Los Angeles — the homeless capital of the nation — is trying to halt the spread of cardboard shanties: Obamavilles. But the city has lost a string of lawsuits, as judges ruled the homeless have constitutional rights to sleep in cars and store their possessions on the sidewalk. […]

The reason the left wants all the crazy people to be walking around free is because otherwise there would be no one to vote DEMOCRAT.

Depravity and chaos and slum is taking over.  You’ve got Obama to ENSURE it.  The modern Democrat Party wants it, welcomes it, YEARNS for it.  They THRIVE on the chaos and the bitterness they create.  They incite it and exploit it to keep pushing for more and more and more and worse and worse and worse.  They are “progressives” who are progressing America right off the cliff and into hell.

And there’s a consistent pattern if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Fifth, there is the terrible, despicable evil that Democrats perpetuated decades over regarding mental illness.   Liberals called the horror they imposed in the name of their progressive moral stupidity a broad-based movement called “deinstitutionalization.”  So-called “compassionate” liberals came up with the “humane” plan to move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.  There was the progressive religious faith in science: the Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now gone forever because newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill “could be treated and released within 6 months.”  I am accurately quoting Kennedy from his message on mental illness given on February 5, 1963.  A liberal can argue that Ronald Reagan signed something – passed by Democrat majorities in both houses of the legislature – along these lines.  But Ronald Reagan ALSO signed a bill that same year legalizing abortion in California.  Which is to say that in 1967 he wasn’t very conservative by any modern standard.  And there is simply no question that the national trend toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was dominated by progressive liberals.  At about the same time, two more ideas came to the forefront of American progressive thinking that continue to haunt society today: 1) that there was a right to mental health treatment, and 2) that there was a right to a more substantive form of due process for those who were to be committed to a mental hospital. If there was a right to mental health treatment, then liberal activist judges could use the threat of releasing patients as a way to force reluctant legislatures to increase funding for treatment.  ACLU attorneys such as Bruce J. Ennis successfully claimed before moral idiot liberal judges that less than 5 percent of mental hospital patients “are dangerous to themselves or to others” and that the rest were improperly locked up “because they are useless, unproductive, ‘odd,’ or ‘different.’”  But these progressive ideas backfired terribly.  These two new “rights” imposed by leftists (the “right” to treatment plus the “right” to impose impossible legal burdens on the system) had the horrifying and hateful result of suddenly making hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill people homeless and helpless.  And it was all done in the name of the same progressivism that we see in Obama and Hillary Clinton today.  Because again, the left doesn’t actually give a flying damn about these people; they are like “fetuses,” non-human abstractions that can be destroyed for the sake of some greater leftist cause.  Mentally ill people fell through the cracks, living shorter, more miserable lives, and often greatly degrading the quality of urban life for everyone else.  And liberals moved on to their next project of collapsing and imploding America.

We USED to get these crazy people of the streets and put them in mental institutions.  We used to protect both the mentally ill and society as a whole.  But the left said, no, no, no, you can’t do that, you can’t lock these people up against their will.  Well, they’re wandering around out in the streets now.  They’ve been wandering the streets for decades, ignored by Democrats, because Democrats dishonestly and slanderously use the heinous crimes that the mentally ill commit with the freedom that liberals gave them to decry guns.  As if a gun picked itself up and started shooting versus a Democrat releasing a psychopath onto the streets who picked up a gun and started shooting.  And so now they’re shooting up movie theaters, etc. etc. and whose fault is the consequences?  Republicans for allowing law-abiding citizens to maintain their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to defend themselves, their homes and their property from all the whackjobs and criminals liberals have running around on the streets.

Sixth, Black Lives Matter.  Well, NO THEY DON’T.  Not to liberals, anyway.  Do you know how we’ve just had riot after riot because black lives matter so much whenever a black person gets killed by a white cop?  Well, that’s the ONLY time “black lives matter” to these horrible political demagogues – and the fact of the matter is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of way under one percent of all black lives are killed by white cops.  We just had a nine-year old girl murdered by black thugs while she was on her mother’s bed doing her homework; she died in her grandmother’s arms, and her life didn’t matter AT ALL to anyone in the “Black Lives Matter” bowel movement.  Because they don’t give a flying DAMN about “black lives,” save as how they can cynically exploit a tragedy for the sake of their rabid and venal political ideology.  THAT’S all that actually matters to them.  The truth is that police kill far more whites than blacks, but Black Lives Matter is about NOTHING but ginning up outrage and bitterness and hate for the sake of their precious political screed.

More than sixty percent of all black lives are snuffed out by liberals in the abortion mills that were literally established by a racist eugenicist to encourage black people to engage in self-genocide.  This racist Nazi sympathizer is today Hillary Clinton’s hero.  But nobody cares about such depravity.  Black lives don’t matter to the damn left.  324,000 black lives have been snuffed out by other blacks in just the past 38 years – and NONE of those lives matter to the leftist Black Lives Matter movement.  93 percent of all black lives snuffed out are snuffed out by other blacks – but those lives don’t matter one damn bit to the left.

The left is trying to manufacture a “distinction” to explain why they don’t give a damn for the vast majority of all the black lives callously ended by their own that they don’t give a damn about.  They claim that they’re decrying the “state-sponsored murders” of black men.  Bullcrap.  Unless the black mayor of Baltimore ordered the black states attorney to order the black police chief in Baltimore to gun down black men, THERE ARE NO STATE-SPONSORED KILLINGS.  There are rather individual tragedies as some black men are legitimately killed because they tried to face down armed policemen, while others are illegitimately killed in unfortunate accidents as individual untrained or scared cops lost their professional composure in one tragic moment.

A black woman named Peggy Hubbard had enough and showed what real decency looks like as she took down this bowel movement by exposing it for the abject disgrace it truly is.

And Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had an article that just documents that “Black Lives Matter” is marching in the completely wrong direction as he exposes the REAL tragedies facing the black community that the leftist black leadership doesn’t want anyone to notice about the godforsaken place they’ve brought their people.

And just to further expose “Black Lives Matter” for the lie that it is, we now find that it is led by a white man masquerading as black.  Because being black means being a VICTIM to the left, and being a VICTIM is the most coveted status by the left.  And until black people truly decide they want to be VICTORS rather than VICTIMS, they will live in a sordid condition.

Seventh, consider the hatred generated by the left against law enforcement by the above Black Lives Matter organization as well as pretty much the entire damn left.  I mean, holy crap, the murder and violent crime rates are SKYROCKETING.  This “sudden spike” has been entirely the creation of leftists who have racially agitated every single instance – regardless of how entirely justified most of those instances have been – in which a white police officer has killed a black suspect.  In the uber-leftist city of Baltimore, we are watching an aftermath that would make you think Boko Haram had just been there.  And it is going on in liberal city after city – Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Ferguson, St. Louis, Dallas, Atlanta, Milwaukie – as the liberal policies in which “we gave them space to destroy” have utterly failed.  And who is suffering the most?  The very poor and minorities that the left is shrieking in the name of!  Black lives don’t matter to the left – that’s just another cynical political lie; Democrats MURDER more than SIXTY PERCENT OF ALL BLACKS in the abortion mills.  And Pro-Democrat blacks are doing 99.999% of all the gunning down of other blacks.  Police are pulling OUT of poor minority communities because they are now terrified of being prosecuted for trying to do their jobs.  A cop literally ought to be more terrified of a damned Democrat politician than he is of a gangbanging murderer pointing a gun in his face.  And it is the poor who the liberals really hate who are suffering the most as a result.

They used to call it “white flight” in the mainstream media “reporting,” which of course meant it was obvious somehow racist.  I mean, how DARE that white family – seeing criminality and thuggery overtake their neighborhood – just up and move out and find a better neighborhood for their kids?  But now sane, decent people understand that it never had anything to DO with racism; black people and Hispanic people, et al do it to: if you want to be a decent person and raise a decent family and you see low-brow, criminal elements moving in, you either have a community that deals with the scourge or your decent families get the hell out of that budding hellhole.  And so we have whole cities that have been dominated by liberalism for a hundred damn years looking like World-War-II-Europe after the heavy bombers leveled them.

Like I said, there is a CONSISTENCY and a PATTERN to what Democrats are doing as they seek the destruction and collapse of the United States of America.

Eighth, consider college tuition.  Can’t get a damn job because the Obama economy has crushed the American Dream into the Marxist Utopia hellhole?  Well, why not be a college student the rest of your life?  I mean, ultimately you’ll be crushed with mindboggling debt because the more liberals drone on – whether that be in a classroom or in the Oval Office – the more it’s gonna cost you in debt you can never possibly hope to ever repay.  Don’t ever think for one nanosecond that conservatives have anything to do with the massive cost of college: liberals dominate; conservatives are shown the door because liberals are rabidly intolerant fascists.  But now the liberals who made college so astronomically expensive are saying they’ll fix the disaster the created by creating, yes, ANOTHER disaster that will be even MORE expensive.  I hear Bernie Saunders and Hillary Clinton trying to outdo each other making college more “free.”  But college tuition has skyrocketed under Obama.  As colleges and universities have become more and more dominated by liberal-progressive socialism, it has – surprise, surprise – gotten more and more expensive.  Now, liberals say it should be FREE for college students.  Okay, poor dude who never had a chance to go to college: YOU GET TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO GOT TO GET WHAT YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE.

Even other committed liberals who actually understand money realize that Hillary Clinton’s plan is a stupid demagogic political stunt that won’t do a damn thing to lower the skyrocketing cost of tuition.  Billionaire Mark Cuban said, “[Hillary’s plan] stands a better chance of increasing the amount of money students owe than decreasing it.”

The fact of the matter is that college and universities are dominated by liberalism whether it is in the faculty lounges or in the administration buildings.  Liberals are by definition people who constantly whine for more money for themselves in the name of some greater cause.  And so there is a one-to-one correlation between how much federal money gets poured into colleges and universities (and ipso facto into liberals’ pockets) and how much tuition keeps going up.  The more you allow students to borrow, the higher the tuition price you can suddenly afford.

It’s what’s known as a vicious cycle.  Because liberals are vicious.

Ninth, I’m going to talk about women and how the “War on Women” narrative is a despicable charge by the left that is waging the actual war on women in our society.  And I’ll end with a discussion of how anyone who actually wanted HEALTH CARE rather than some “insurance card” with a tiny network and sky-high deductibles is a victim of the left.  I’ll finish up when I get back from some meetings.

As Greece Votes Itself Into Collapse, It Is Following The Same Wicked Stupidity That American Voters Followed In Electing Obama

July 7, 2015

I’ve pointed this out before: there is NOTHING more dangerous than the right to vote when a people becomes sufficiently depraved.  Democrats tell us that we should round-file the 2nd-Amendment-guaranteed right of the people to keep and bear arms even as they tell us that ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants and dead people from voting is “unconstitutional.”

I pointed out the fact that the NAZI Party was elected by the same big-government worshiping socialist fascists who elected Obama twice.

If you put a gun in the hands of a wicked fool, whatever he does with that gun, he will pay the consequences for his foolishness.  At least, if decent people are allowed to also keep and bear arms so they can put an end to that wicked fool.  But let a wicked fool vote, and he can do so over and over again with impunity and never be held accountable.

In Greece – rather obviously a nation filled with wicked fools – we just saw the results of a vote.  It’s kind of interesting.  In the Lost Angeles Slimes we have the following account.  Allow me to post what I believe is the true gist by selecting a few passages and discussing that.  At the very bottom of the article I will have the entire LA Times article available:

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

[…]

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

[…]

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

[…]

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Let’s understand some basic facts: Greece owes – and promised to repay when it borrowed – $270 BILLION.  To be extravagantly wasted on a tiny nation of 10,775,557 people.  That massive government borrowing allowed Greek government to provide benefits that far and vastly exceeded the country’s ability to pay for its largesse.  And as Margaret Thatcher once famously put it, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  It’s like that saying, “Your mouth is writing checks that your ass can’t cash.”  Greek socialists, like ALL socialists EVERYWHERE (especially here in the U.S.), want to live high on the hog and force somebody else to keep paying the tab.  And so when the check comes due for that fancy meal in the high price resort, they angrily refuse to pay the tab they racked up.

The European Union is saying, “You’ve got to pay for this.”  And the Greek socialist liberal progressives are like, “oh, hell no.”  And a major problem now is that if Greece can weasel out of its debt with some stupid vote, then why can’t the OTHER P.I.G.S.?  Why can’t Portugal weasel out of its debt that they compiled with the same insanely wicked socialism Obama and the Democrat Party preach here?  Why can’t Ireland weasel out of its debt?  Why can’t Spain say bye-bye to its debt payments?  If the EU allows Greece out of its debt, the entire system will necessarily massively collapse.

These are simply facts.  And facts ought to matter.  The European Union simply cannot possibly allow Greece to do what Greece insists on doing without basically cutting the throats of every single person in every single member-state of the European Union that would go broke paying for Greece’s AND therefore Portugal’s AND therefore Ireland’s AND therefore Spain’s massive self-inflicted debt addiction.  Which again is no different from the debt-addiction of Barack Hussein Obama and every single member of the just-as-socialist Democrat Party machine.

But liberal progressives, and let’s just call them what the hell they are – socialists – are pathologically immune to facts or reality or consequences.

So how did the EU view this referendum (emphasis on “dumb”)?  Another article says it all in two sentences:

Tsipras dismissed harsh criticism from other European countries on his decision.

“The referendum will take place as scheduled, next Sunday, whether our partners want it or not,” he said.

Allowing this to go to the people was an act of insanity and demagoguery, not an act of leadership.  But demagogic delusion with a complete abandonment of true moral leadership is the heart and soul of leftism.

So you have the leftist Greek prime minister just flat-out flagrantly campaigning on a completely altered state of reality.  You have this leftist turd Alexis Tsipras – or as I prefer to call him, the Greek Obama – making the most insane promises in the history of the world.  And like the American Obama, the Greek Obama is leading his nation and his people straight to a very painful hell.

Just like the United States is headed straight to a very painful hell.

When Obama deceitfully campaigned for president, he told a lot of the same kind of sick lies and made the same sort of delusional fool promises.

Obama promised a “reset in relations” with Russia.  He said a weak America that would not pose a threat to Russia would be the foundation for this reset, and that Russia would obviously respond to the fact that America was no longer any kind of a threat to Russia with love and a determination to disarm and become weak in response.  He said the same thing in relationship to Iran and that nation’s steadfast determination to possess nuclear weapons with the ballistic missile capability to deliver those missiles at both the little satan Israel and the great satan America.  He said the same thing in relationship to the “war on terror” which he renamed “the overseas contingency operation” to broadcast how minimal it would be under his regime.  He promised us that the only reason our enemies hated us was because we were too strong and too dominant and pushed our weight around too much.

History has already proven what an abject fool Obama was in every sense of the word in terms of his foreign policy.

In the same way, on the domestic front, Obama made all kinds of fool promises about his giganotosaurus-government stimulus package.  Obama demanded – and got – a $3.27 TRILLION stimulus that he promised would fire up the engine of American growth.  Over and over and over again, Obama promised his stimulus would create “shovel-ready jobs.”  History proves that it in actual fact did the precise opposite.  Ultimately Obama actually admitted that:

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

Obama’s promise to pay back the $3.3 trillion he demagogued America into putting on its credit card bill is as good as Greece’s promise to pay that $270 billion they wanted but just didn’t want to actually pay back.

Greece’s $270 billion of other people’s money worked just as well for them as Obama’s $3.3 trillion in other people’s money worked for us.  It didn’t.

We now have a Great Depression level of actual unemployment that isn’t counted as month after month, basically TWICE as many people abandon hope of getting a job and drop out of the rigged-statistical-shenanigan that is our “unemployment rate calculation” for everyone that actually gets a damn job.  Just as Obama has created only one job for every two immigrants he allowed to flood into this country:

  A record 93,626,000 Americans have stopped looking for work in an economy that managed to create only one job for every two immigrants the government let in from 2000 to 2014.

But what the hell: just keeping making those, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor and if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan” promises, you lying turd.  What we have now is an ObamaCare failed system – characterized by the five billion dollars that couldn’t even build a successful damned website – that is a true socialist-fascist crony capitalist system that enriched the giant insurance companies at the expense of millions of Americans.  Which is why that LA Times article titled “Obamacare cash fuels healthcare merger mania” begins by pointing out:

A gusher of Obamacare money is fueling a merger frenzy in U.S. healthcare.

The latest jolt came Thursday when Woodland Hills insurer Health Net Inc. agreed to be bought by Medicaid insurer Centene Corp. for $6.8 billion.

And more billion-dollar deals are in the works as health insurers, hospitals and drug companies bulk up in size so they can seize on government spending in Obamacare exchanges, state Medicaid programs and Medicare Advantage for the baby boomers.

Riding high on Wall Street and flush with cash, big health insurers in particular have been on the prowl for deals. Atop the shopping list are companies that boost their government business.

“The Affordable Care Act is really driving this merger mania,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are billions of dollars pouring into the system, and it’s money to buy insurance.”

These giant companies, both big pharma and the giant insurers, supported Obama, and paved the way toward his never-seen-in-all-human-history more than two billion-dollar campaign warchest that he used to destroy all political opposition.  And now they’re really going to let us have it, points out CNN.

Everything about Obama and his supporters and his political party -EVERYTHING – is based on and built upon LIES.

The same kind of lies based on the same flagrant disregard for reality and the consequences of reality ignored that we’re seeing unfold in Greece.

Just thought I’d point that out to you as you watch Greece crash and realize it’s a preview for what Obama has done to America.

Here is the entire LA Times article on the Greek ‘no’ vote:

In landslide 61% to 39% vote, Greece says ‘no’ to bailout deal
By Henry Chu  contact the reporter
July 5, 2015, 7:50 PM |reporting from Athens

The resounding rejection of an international bailout deal by voters in Greece raised fears Sunday of the collapse of the country’s banking system, a catastrophic government default, an eventual exit from the euro and potential social unrest.

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

The EU is now confronted with one of the gravest challenges to its mission of “ever closer union” between member states.

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

An emergency summit of Eurozone leaders is to be held Tuesday.

More urgently, officials at the European Central Bank are to meet Monday to review the emergency aid that has propped up Greece’s nearly depleted financial system for the last few months.

If the European Central Bank decides to cut off that lifeline or make it costlier, Greek banks are likely to run out of cash within days. Business would grind to a halt, shops could run short of basic supplies and increasingly agitated residents could find it hard to buy fuel and medicine.

Greek banks have been closed since June 29 on order of the government, and customers limited to about $67 a day in ATM withdrawals. Officials insist that the banks will reopen Tuesday, but analysts doubt this can happen unless the European Central Bank maintains or increases its assistance.

“Our immediate priority is the rapid restoration of the functioning of our banking system and the restoration of our economic stability,” Tsipras said in a nationally televised address Sunday night. “I am certain that the ECB fully understands not only the general economic situation but also the humanitarian dimension which the crisis has taken in the country.”

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

Financial analysts say that this is not a threat in the next few days, but warn that the probability of a “Grexit” down the line has increased considerably because of Sunday’s vote.

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Merkel and other European leaders must now ponder whether to let Greece go bust and drop out of the Eurozone or whether such a course would inflict irreparable damage to the credibility of the euro and to the project of greater European unity. The Greek debt crisis is the severest test the euro has faced since it was introduced more than a decade ago.

To try to entice his Eurozone partners back to the bargaining table, Tsipras is apparently considering shuffling his negotiating team to include a broader spectrum of members. Several European officials have said openly that they no longer trust Tsipras or his Syriza party; a Greek delegation with some members drawn from other parties could be more palatable.

“That will show that Greece does not want a conflict,” said political commentator George Papageorgiou. “If there is a consensual approach from the Greek part, that could facilitate a consensual approach from the other part.”

Dijsselbloem, the Eurozone finance ministers’ chief, said the first move was Athens’. “We will now wait for the initiatives of the Greek authorities,” he said.

The size of the victory for the “no” campaign came as a surprise both inside and outside Greece after a flurry of opinion polls showed voters to be split down the middle. Bitter disagreement over the significance and possible effect of the plebiscite cleaved living rooms and workplaces across the country.

Just over 62% of the country’s 9.9 million voters cast a ballot, easily surpassing the mandatory threshold of 40% for a referendum to be considered valid.

Surveys suggested that young people voted “no” in droves. Many agreed with Tsipras’ contention that the bailout proposals on offer from Greece’s lenders demanded too much austerity on top of years of brutal spending cuts and would hit the poor and elderly disproportionately hard.

“These measures would worsen the situation,” said teacher Paula Andriotaki, 33, after casting her vote in a local school on a bright and warm afternoon. “We try to see light, but we get worse and worse.”

“Yes” supporters had urged Greeks to join them in order to guarantee Athens’ continued place in the Eurozone. They said that membership in the wider European Union could also be at risk and that Greece could not afford to be isolated.

A 40-year-old man named Giorgos, who declined to give his surname, blamed Tsipras for passing the buck.

“I would have preferred the referendum not to have happened,” he said. “I believe it is a political alibi. We are being asked to take a decision that should have been taken by someone else.”

The ballot paper was the subject of some criticism, because the question it asked was wordy and couched in jargon and the check box for “no” was above that for “yes.”

Moreover, the bailout deal referred to was technically moot. The offer from Greece’s creditors expired Tuesday night, after talks with Athens collapsed over Tsipras’ surprise decision to call a referendum. Creditors say that negotiations on a new agreement must start from scratch.

Because of the convoluted ballot question, and the conflicting claims of whether the real issue at stake was the future of Greece as a member of the Eurozone, many Greeks complained of confusion over just what was being asked of them.

“I don’t know what result I would like to see,” said a 19-year-old voter named Dimitris, who was still undecided as he prepared to enter a voting booth. “It would be a disaster to leave the euro, but it would also be disastrous to accept more austerity measures. ‘Yes’ is a bad choice, but ‘no’ is also suicidal.”

Sunday’s referendum was Greece’s first in 41 years. In 1974, Greeks were asked to decide whether their country should retain its monarchy.

The answer then: also a resounding “no.”

Special correspondent Pavlos Zafiropoulos contributed to this report.

One of the things that the left loves to do is hang all the consequences of “austerity” on the heads of conservatives.  On their view, the crisis has NOTHING to do with the $270 billion they borrowed in Greece and now refuse to repay; it’s because of “austerity” that the economy has collapsed.

Every leftist is a morally sick individual who essentially whines, “I want a mansion and a yacht, and if you don’t give them to me, it’s your fault I’m poor.”

And then there are the lies from the liars: at the heart of the “austerity” that the European Union is imposing on Greece is the demand for Greece to raise taxes.  HOW MANY CONSERVATIVES DO YOU HEAR CALLING FOR TAX HIKES????  This has NOTHING to do with conservatives, either the sick and diseased and insane borrowing or the attempts of the lenders to get their fool money back.  Rather, this is socialists European Union liberals trying to get their money back from socialist Greek liberals who are crazier than they are.

Conservatives call for LOW TAXES because LOWERING TAX RATES PRODUCES MORE REVENUES.

It’s like I have always said:

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

Please keep in mind that true conservatives like myself write articles such as this one that is particularly relevant given what is happening right now in Europe:

If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

So from now on, any fool who blames Republicans or conservatives for failed “austerity” seriously needs to get a punch in the mouth.

What we are seeing in Greece is nothing more than the abject failure of socialism to deal with the crisis created by socialism.  Which is of course hardly surprising to anyone who is capable of thinking.

The Obama Economy: Bovine Fecal Matter On Ice

July 2, 2015

Well, the good news is that the unemployment rate went down to a seven-year low for Obama to 5.3%  Surely Obama must be doing an awesome job, Democrats say.

Okay.  Obama’s BEST MONTH EVER statistic-wise matches the EIGHT-YEAR AVERAGE for the Bush presidency that Democrats say was terrible. Although, technically, Bush’s average unemployment rate of 5.27% is still BETTER than Obama’s best month EVER.

During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate  was 5.27%

Which is another way of saying that “Democrat” and “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite” may not rhyme, but they sure mean the same thing.

The mainstream media are pathological hypocrites, for sure.  You can take a trip down memory lane and compare how they compared unemployment numbers even when they were BETTER for the Republican presidents.

The bad news is that twice as many people just gave up looking for a job as actually GOT a job this month.

The bad news is that Obama set another record.  And not in any good sense:

Record 93,626,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Declines to 62.6%
By Ali Meyer | July 2, 2015 | 8:42 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, hit 250,663,000. Of those, 157,037,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,037,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,663,000 civilian noninstitutional population, the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.

Another 93,626,000 did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one.

Of the 157,037,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,739,000 had a job, and 8,299,000 did not have a job were actively seeking one—making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 8,299,000 job seekers were 5.3 percent of the 157,037,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent which dropped from the 5.5 percent unemployment seen in May.

The number of employed Americans dropped from 148,795,000 in May to 148,739,000 in June, a decline of 56,000. The number of unemployed Americans also dropped over the month from 8,674,000 in May to 8,299,000 in June, a decline of 375,000.

The labor participation rate was 65.7 percent the day Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Labor Participation Rate thru June 2015

I like this article because it’s one of the first I’ve seen that actually gives you a notion of the statistical shenanigan that our “unemployment rate” truly is.  Nearly 94 million working-age people are unemployed, but our unemployment rate only considers 8 million of them.  I guess the other 86 million are silver-spoon trust-fund kids lounging around their mansions sipping champagne and dining on the finest caviar.  Either that or you’re an “abject imbecile” – another synonym for “Democrat” to go alongside “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite.”

As I’ve been trying to point out over and over again, Obama has been to the labor participation rate what stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer is to quality of life.  Obama has been absolutely devastating and toxic to American jobs.  And like the stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer sufferer, the patient that is the American economy is actually getting weaker and weaker measured in terms of the ALL-IMPORTANT measure of how many working-age Americans actually have a damn JOB.  The rate of Americans with a damn JOB – which for the factual record are LOWER PAYING JOBS with FEWER HOURS under Obama – has been sinking and sinking and sinking.  Thanks to the Obama presidency and the stage five cancer that is the Democrat Party, fewer and fewer Americans are working, while more and more of those fewer and fewer are working for less and cannot get decent full-time jobs.

And what is the Democrat strategy?  Well, further disincentivize employers by putting more and more burdens and obstacles on them.  You know, like treating that stage five lung and bronchus cancer patient with concentrated dosages of asbestos and then blaming the fact that the patient keeps getting sicker on Republicans.

I’ve listened to the smartest, smarmiest Democrats trying to explain why the labor participation rate is so shockingly low under Obama.  Here’s one example:

There are a few reasons why the LFPR has declined. First, the country is aging as baby boomers retire. An older country means a lower percent of the population will be in the labor force. This is a structural reason for the LFPR’s recent decline—it was going to happen regardless of the underlying economic conditions. That’s why many economists forecasted that the rate would slowly fall over time.

Here’s the problem, smart, smarmy Democrat: you’re exactly what the Bible foretold when it said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”  Consider the FACTS that blow the Democrat theory right out of the water akin to the way that the reality of Japanese torpedoes blew up the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor when Democrats also didn’t have a freaking clue what the hell was going on:

Last week, though, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis took on the notion that the drop is all about demographics and not a sign that the labor market is sicker than we think. The study looked at the labor force participation rate not just in the U.S. but in eight major developed countries, including Sweden, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Nearly all of those countries are facing the same demographic trends as the U.S. And Japan is currently dealing with an even more severe case of aging population. And yet, out of the eight nations, the U.S. is the only one where the participation in the labor force is declining.

So much for the Democrat theory that, well, shoot, you can’t blame Obama for the collapse in labor participation.  It was just selfish Republican white people retiring.  Because all the OTHER developed nations have the same demographic issues as America does -with Japan’s aging population FAR WORSE.  And yet somehow we’re doing worse than ANY of them in labor participation.

And for another factoid, it is striking that Democrats are trying to point at an aging demographic to explain our dismal labor participation rate:  BECAUSE THEY HAVE MURDERED SIXTY MILLION INNOCENT BABIES IN THEIR GOD DAMN ABORTION MILLS SINCE 1973 AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD DO TO THE AVERAGE DAMN AGE OF OUR POPULATION???  It’s akin to the classic example of the child who murdered both his parents and then asked for mercy from the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.  And so we can now document that that proverbial godawful kid is a DEMOCRAT through and through.

If you are a DEMOCRAT – which stands for DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT – you are a liar without shame, honor, decency, virtue, or integrity of any kind whatsoever.  And one of the reasons you so worship government is that your love of lies most flourishes because the best way to lie of ALL is with STATISTICS.

The article includes a rather striking graph that shows America DEAD LAST among the top developed nations but I keep looking at it:

What I particularly noticed as I stared in horror at this graph of the demise of my country was the fact that Bush was actually bringing the baby up between 2005 and the middle part of 2008.  I checked the Department of Labor chart and the actual numbers back up the graph: the labor participation rate was actually going UP.  Clinton left office just before a TERRIBLE RECESSION PLUS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF THE 9/11 ATTACK struck America as a result of Clinton’s leaving America weak and blind in the face of our enemies.  That recession was called the DotCom Bubble collapse.

Here’s an example of how I’ve pointed out these stubborn things called FACTS in the past:

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again recently: if you are a Democrat, you are a LIAR at home with LIES.  You are a BAD PERSON.  You have one middle finger stuck up in the air at the God of the Bible you rabidly despise and the other middle finger shoved up your rectum because you are a DEPRAVED PERVERT.

The above quote is about how Bill Clinton led America straight into the vicious  gut-punch of a giant recession that the pathologically dishonest propaganda mill that is the mainstream media refused to credit him with even though there is no question that the economy was clearly going into recession as Bill Clinton was still in office which then exploded under George Bush.  But we’ve also got to consider the knockout-punch to the head that was the 9/11 attack as a result of Bill Clinton leaving America both weak and blind and with a reputation for withdrawing from conflict.  You know, just as Barack Obama has now done to America.  Obama isn’t just the first president since Kennedy to beg for spacecraft rides because he’s pissed away our space capability; he’s now actually having to beg for ships to deploy our Marines!!!  In a time when our enemies are building up their militaries and becoming stronger, America under Obama is becoming weaker and weaker.  Which is why we’re getting bullied around – by Islamic State, by China, by Russia, by Iran, just to name a few enemies – like we have never been in my entire lifetime.

We are ripe for an attack by emboldened enemies.  And no nation has EVER deserved to be attacked more than this wretched Obamanation.

Another thing I noticed as I look at the above graph is that the liberal explanation that the labor participation rate was highest under Bill Clinton fails to consider a key fact (not including the fact that it was actually much higher under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush than it ever was under Bill Clinton): I notice that the labor participation rate PLUNGED under Bill Clinton for the first years of his presidency when he was playing the role of liberal president with a Democrat Congress.  But then in 1994 Clinton had his ass handed to him by the American people who put REPUBLICANS in charge of both the House and the Senate.  And Bill Clinton ultimately uttered the famous words, “The era of big government is OVER.”  And it was under the REPUBLICAN policies OF reducing the giant jackboot of federal government power that the economy managed something of a rebound.  At least until the DotCom bubble and the 9/11 attack both of which Bill Clinton was solely responsible for, which forced George Bush to build it up all over again.

I’ve patiently explained why the economy collapsed under the Bush presidencyIt was the Democrat-constructed housing bubble enacted by the Democrat-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (otherwise known as GSEs, which is the acronym for the blatantly leftist fascistic crony capitalist monstrosity of Government Sponsored Enterprises).  I end the second of the above articles I link to with this:

What did Democrats do with the mainstream media’s culpability?  They falsely dropped the crisis at the feet of “greedy” Wall Street.  But while examples of Wall Street greed abound, the liberal intelligentsia deliberately overlooked the central and preceding role of Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

And the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased.  What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, any intelligent observer should note a primary conflict that amounts to a fundamental hypocritical contradiction: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency.  What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.  This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle.  Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate.  And then to explode.  It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments.  This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’.  And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats.  And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

Anybody who wants to see “right wing Republican policies” in that 2008 collapse is what I call an idiot.  Democrats under Jimmy Carter enacted the Community Reinvestment Act – which insanely and immorally forced banks to make loans to poor minorities who couldn’t afford to actually pay for them – that was expanded under Bill Clinton at the tail end of his presidency; and Democrats then used the expanded GSEs to pound the crack in the economic wall that the CRA fiasco created wide open.  George W. Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to install sane regulations to control Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats rabidly refused to allow ANY controls for their out-of-control GSEs.  These are just FACTS.  Bush’s failure was that he shrugged his shoulders while Democrats planted a giant bomb in our economic engine; George Bush’s failure was that he failed to hunt every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.

The fact of the matter is that when Clinton governed left, the economy floundered and was failing.  The American people went right, elected a rightwing Congress, and Clinton went with them for the greater part. Things that Bill Clinton gives himself sole credit for were actually platforms from the Republican Contract with America.  Now we’ve got this demonstrably false myth that Clinton was a liberal who governed as a liberal and that is why the economy flourished.

I’ve got to end somewhere, although I can literally go on all day.  Because the actual facts prove that Democrats are basically the cause of everything that is evil or ruinous in America.  So let me just end with something that George Will said a few weeks ago (when the labor participation rate merely matched the horror of 1978 rather than beat it for being even WORSE as it just did):

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: We could continue this conversation and I’m sure we will, but let’s turn to the economy and some really disappointing numbers on the economy this week. Here they are. Only 126,000 jobs were added in March. That’s the weakest hiring in 15 months. Labor force participation dropped to 62.7 percent, matching the lowest since 1978. And the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta estimates first quarter growth at zero, zero percent, flat. George, what’s going on here?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, for the second year in a row they’ve blamed poor quarterly growth on insufficient global warming, that is on winter, on an unusually cold winter. Let your mind go back to November last year. There was job creation of 321,000 jobs and the administration said this is a miraculous achievement and a harbinger of things to come. It wasn’t a harbinger and it wasn’t miraculous. During the Reagan recovery there were 23 months of job creation over 300,000. Reagan had a month of job creation of 1 million and this was at a time when there were 75 million fewer Americans. Now, never mind zero growth. We are now being told really that two percent growth may be the new normal. If so, that’s a disaster because every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, every day between now and 2030, 10,000 more baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we have two percent growth, the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the private sector being able to throw off the revenues, to pay the bills for the promises we’ve made to ourselves becomes impossible.

WALLACE: Just tell again that the labor force participation stat that you have, if it were what it was at the beginning of the Obama administration.

WILL: If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent, we wouldn’t be complaining about the bad recovery because we wouldn’t call it a recovery.

It takes the Holy Bible to explain the sheer idiocy that is a Democrat voter:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20

.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 632 other followers