Archive for the ‘Joe Biden’ Category

I Prayed For Mitt Romney And Boy Did God Ever Hear Me! I Beg You To Do The Same – Because This Is A Beseech God In Sackcloth Moment For America

October 4, 2012

I’ve written about the biased and dishonest polls that the mainstream media have been stuffing down our throats the last several weeks.  But nevertheless, the consensus has been – even among conservatives – that Romney’s campaign wasn’t gaining any kind of serious traction.

I knew that the debates would be critical.  And particularly this first debate last night that was anticipated to be watched by 50 million Americans.

So every single night on every single walk, I took a little time to specifically pray for Mitt Romney’s campaign and particularly for his debate with Barack Obama.

I prayed that the Lord would give him wisdom and discernment and that kairos sense of timing in saying what needed to be said at the precise moment that it would be most powerful to say it.  Knowing that Romney would have to be very aggressive and yet somehow be likable, I prayed that he would be able to strike the perfect balance.  I prayed that Romney would be able to keep all of his facts and points in his head without coming across as stiff and rehearsed.

And I also prayed for Obama, too.  I didn’t quite know how to pray; prayer is a sacred thing for me and I have never in my life went before the Lord and prayed that somebody would be hurt or humiliated.  But the word “exposed” kept popping into my mind.  I began to earnestly pray that Obama would be exposed for what he was.

Anyway, I set out on my walk at 6 pm Pacific time and started my recorder just before setting out for my slightly over two-hour hike.  And when I came home, I turned on the TV to see what was going on.

Marco Rubio was speaking to Sean Hannity.  And it was when I heard Rubio say the exact words, “The president was exposed tonight….” that I realized that my prayers had been answered.  And of course it just kept getting better and better the more I heard and the more I watched.

Virtually every single thing I had specifically prayed for was specifically answered.  It was just amazing.

I know that I am not the only one who has been praying for Mitt Romney as America’s only hope to take this nation away from the failed leadership of Barack Obama.

But I know that a lot more Christians need to step up and seriously start praying for what is going to happen on November 6.

Isaiah chapter 5:1-7 contains a powerful metaphor that may well represent America if we are not careful.  This was a nation that powerfully began as one nation under God, with a Constitution that was for a “moral and religious people.”  But what God sowed He has not been reaping as we have instead degenerated into “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

And so God says:

Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
6 I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds
not to rain on it.”

I don’t want that to happen to my country any more than Isaiah and the prophets wanted that to happen to Israel as that nation rejected God and turned on His ways.

There’s another haunting passage in Ezekiel 22:30

I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before Me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.”

America doesn’t have much time left.  Especially if Barack Obama is re-elected and is allowed to finish what he started.

We need to pray.

I believe that when Christians give up on America, God will give up on America.  And as long as God’s people keep praying and keep building up the wall and keep standing in the gap on behalf of the land, God will keep fighting for us.

The next debate is between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden on October 11.  The second Obama-Romney debate will be on October 16, and the third will be on October 22.  Pray for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan!

But don’t just pray for the debates or even for just the candidates; pray for the campaign and the campaign staff.  Pray for THEIR wisdom and discernment; pray that ALL of the people who are important to the Romney-Ryan campaign team would know what to say and when to say it.  And in the same way, pray that God would expose the Obama-Biden team for what they truly are.

Finally, pray for the wisdom and discernment of the American people.  Divine wisdom is ignored by those who have turned off their consciences and therefore turned off their minds.  Jesus was the wisest man who ever lived, and spoke Words of truth, but the people He came to as His own shouted, “Crucify Him!”  Pray that the American people would know the truth and respond to it.  Pray as you never have before for your nation while you still have a nation left to pray for.

Advertisements

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

February 7, 2012

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party – turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

Obama-Endorsed Cockroach Jon Corzine Acted Like A Democrat With Investors’ Money

November 17, 2011

The Wall Street Journal sets the table for Barack Obama’s direct responsibility for Jon Corzine’s acts of pure theft:

President Barack Obama told us Jon Corzine was looking out for the little guy.

Never mind Mr. Corzine’s 1% pedigree as a former Goldman Sachs chairman. Never mind how Mr. Corzine essentially bought himself a U.S. Senate seat, spending his personal Goldman Sachs loot in one of the most expensive senatorial races ever. Never mind the dough Mr. Corzine stuffed in Mr. Obama’s pocket.

Here’s what Mr. Obama said in October 2009 while stumping for Mr. Corzine’s re-election bid as the Democratic governor of New Jersey:

“You’ve had an honorable man, a decent man, an honest man, at the helm of this state. … He’s fought for what matters to ordinary folks.”

“People…say, ‘You know, I was saving up all my life. …. Suddenly, because of this financial crisis, I may have to go back to work.’ “

“Jon knows these are challenging times. This is why he got into public service. He didn’t do it for the paycheck.”

“This crisis…came about because of the same theories, the same lax regulation, the same trickle-down economics that the other guy’s party has been peddling for years.”

“Jon’s got the mop and he’s cleaning up after somebody else’s mess.”

Now someone else has the mop, and they’re cleaning up Mr. Corzine’s mess.  [….]

“One of the things you’ve got in Jon Corzine is somebody who tells it to you straight,” Mr Obama said.

You see in microcosm the entire lie that is Obama and liberalism.  Republicans are crooks.  Only Democrats care about the little people.  Republicans created the mess.  Democrats are going to fix it.

The problem is that liberals are even more arrogant than they are foolish and naive.

Everything Obama says, everything Obama believes, is a lie.

Here’s what Joe Biden said about Jon Corzine – while he was pointing out how team Obama repeatedly asked Corzine for advice and trusted him implicitly:

“I literally picked up the phone and called Jon Corzine and said Jon, what do you think we should do,” Biden said. “The reason we called Jon is that we knew that he knew about the economy, about world markets, how we had to respond, unlike almost anyone we knew. It was because he had been in the pit — because he had been in the furnace. And we trusted his judgment.”

That’s right, Jon Corzine was a trusted adviser to Obama and Biden.  That’s why our economy is in such great shape now.  And the guy who helped Obama put together the massively failed stimulus also just put together the fourth largest bankruptcy in American history as he put his liberalism to work at MF (which stands for “Managed Futures”) Global and helped himself to other people’s money.

Here’s what Obama’s and Biden’s pal – the slick little weasel that Obama said was looking out for the little guy exactly as Obama himself was looking out for the little guy – has been up to:

11/05/2011 @ 12:48PM |6,308 views
The Mysterious Disappearance of MF Global’s $630 Million
Robert Lenzner, Forbes Staff

Where oh where did Corzine’s $630 million go to? The search and rescue teams are all about the mighty  financial institutions madly trying to find  $630 million of customers money that stupidly and  unethically and perhaps illegally was commingled with MF Global’s own capital in order for the firm to stay in business and avoid that deadly credit rating reduction that was one of a number of kisses of death.

Is it at JP M0rgan? At first, it was announced to be resting easily and safely at the House of Morgan. But, apparently not.

Then, some fantasist figured the  New York Federal Reserve Bank had grabbed it to secure its safety from mobs of enraged clients. No, that rumor has been put to bed.

I ask you; how is it possible that, days after MF Global filed for bankruptcy,   a sum as large as $630 million still be missing in action. Something is wrong in the state of Denmark. Didn’t some computer keep track monies coming in and going out at MF Global?

And there are other pointed inquiries that must be made into this ridiculously outrageous confusion.

1. How was it that former Democratic  Senate bigwig Corzine obtained approval from the regulators to combine other people’s money– and MF Global’s money in the first place?    This is an outrage– and if true, those regulators must be fired immediately–  and regulators hired who play by the rules of the game. This epic tale is kissing cousin to the unwillingness  of the law to charge criminal  fraud against some of the investment banks that  sold securities they knew to be nearly worthless.

2. How can it be that JP Morgan does not know for a certainty that the $630 million is money that ended up on their books from the chaotic ramifications of MF Global’s bankruptcy? It doesn’t fill me with confidence that JPM’s computers, its reporting system, its logistical reporting of its affairs up and down the ranks of the bank is working mellifluously. Sounds  like a job for the Senate Banking Committee, or the Fed in Washington to investigate and make sure we can know who owes what to whom in our financial system

3. Then, there’s the confusion about oversight of  MF Global. Here we are 3 years on from the meltdown, and still a firm like MF Global seems to have several masters that are obliged to understand its affairs. The CFTC, for starts, then what about the SEC,  and the commodity exchanges where MF does its trading. We had better resolve WHO has the role of BIG DADDY in making sure some other more crucial firm doesn’t come unstuck and lead to  the mysterious disappearance of several billion dollars. Or even several tens of billions of dollars.

We are still paying for an apathetic financial regulatory system. Get James Stone, former CFTC Chairman, to  form a special investigation committee, to map out the mandatory changes that must be made. And  let’s hope the powers that be find the missing $630 million by then. Let’s hope it’s the result of  sloppy record keeping, inadequate disclosure, the failure of systems– and not some perfidy.

We’re starting to learn what happened.  Remember Maxine Waters getting caught on tape threatening to “nationalize” the oil companies?  It has simply always been the tendency of liberals to “liberate” other people’s money and put that money to a “greater purpose.”  And in that spirit, Jon Corzine liberated investor money, taking it without the investors’ permission to invest it toward the greater needs of MF Global.  And now it’s simply gone, you know, like the $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) Obama did the same thing with in the name of “stimulus” or more specifically the $535 million Obama did it with in the name of “green energy.”

These damn liberals are all fascist crony capitalist thugs and thieves who would never dream of risking their own damn money when they can just take yours instead.

Update 4/23/12: Just to further document how incredibly corrupt Barack Obama is, Jon Corzine is STILL bundling campaign money for him.

The Coulter Counterfactual: ‘If I Were A Liberal’

October 28, 2011

Joe Biden gave a vicious, hateful, divisive and frankly fascist rant in which he essentially blamed conservatives and Republicans for all the rapes and murders.

It doesn’t matte that the “facts” that Biden claimed were all a bunch of lies.  From FactCheck.org:

Biden’s Whopper in Flint, Mich.
Posted on October 20, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 21, 2011

Joe Biden falsely claimed on multiple occasions that the number of reported rapes in Flint, Mich., has skyrocketed since 2008 — providing different accounts at different events that do not square with FBI data. He started at a 152 percent increase, and since then has said rapes in Flint have tripled and even “quadrupled.” But FBI data show the number of rapes in Flint has gone down 11 percent, from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010.

Biden also said the city’s murder rate has “tripled.” The city says there were a record-high 66 murders last year — double, not triple, the 32 murders that occurred in 2008.

Rapes Haven’t ‘Quadrupled’

The vice president has been touring the country delivering his pitch for the American Jobs Act, President Barack Obama’s $447 billion plan that includes $35 billion to prevent the layoff of police, firefighters and teachers. On Oct. 12, Biden visited Flint, Mich., which has had the highest violent crime rate in the nation for the last two years. The city’s violent crime rate has increased from 20.2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to 22.1 in 2010, a jump of about 9 percent, our analysis of FBI reports shows.

Crime is bad in Flint, no doubt, but Biden makes it out to be worse than it is.

[See site for video]

Biden, Oct. 12: You know Pat Moynihan said everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on the police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229.

He has cited Flint’s crime stats in other appearances since then, including at an Oct. 18 visit to the University of Pennsylvania — the home of FactCheck.org.

[See site for video]

Biden, Oct. 18: I was up in Flint, Michigan, last week. Their police department’s cut more than in half. The murder rate, close to triple. The number of rapes have quadrupled.

A day later, Biden was asked by a reporter for Human Events, a conservative website, if he regretted “using a rape reference to describe Senate opposition” to the bill. Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, have criticized the vice president for suggesting that rape and murder will rise if the Republicans don’t pass the jobs bill. Biden replied: “I said rape was up three times in Flint. Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers.”

We have looked at the numbers. We started with the number of reported rapes, because Biden makes three claims that don’t add up: that rapes have gone up from 91 to 229 (a 152 percent increase), that rapes have “quadrupled,” and that rapes have tripled. He’s badly wrong on all counts. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for those years show that the number of reported rapes declined from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010, or a nearly 11 percent drop.

We also calculated the rate of reported rapes per 1,000 residents to account for the city’s declining population. Even then, the rate has declined from .91 rapes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to .84 rapes per 1,000, a decline of 8 percent.

We asked the vice president’s office to explain such a gross discrepancy. It referred us to the Flint mayor’s office — saying the figures came from the city. In response to our questions, Flint Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock put out a statement saying the city “stands behind the crime statistics provided to the Office of The Vice President.” It also said: “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria.”

The statement falls short of supporting Biden’s various claims, however. For several reasons:

  • The city didn’t specify what rape figures it gave Biden, and he’s given at least three different and conflicting accounts. He said variously that the increase from 2008 was 152 percent, that it tripled and that it “quadrupled.” At least two of those claims must be wrong.
  • It’s true that rapes are notoriously underreported, as the vice president’s office pointed out to us. But Biden was talking about reported rapes. In fact, he used the FBI data when he said that there were 103 rapes in Flint in 2008. So why was the FBI report accurate in 2008 but not accurate in 2010? The city didn’t explain that.
  • The FBI gets its data from the city, because Uniform Crime Reports are voluntary and self reporting. If there was a mistake on the rape data, then it was the city’s fault. But the city, in its statement, does not acknowledge making a mistake in reporting rape data to the FBI.
  • The city did admit that it made a mistake in reporting the number of murders that occurred in 2010. It did so immediately — on the day the FBI report came out in May — and it did so again in the statement released in response to our questions. But it did not admit to making any reporting mistakes on rapes, then or now.

Update, Oct. 21: City spokeswoman Dawn Jones later explained to us that the 2010 figure provided to Biden included not just rapes that the city reports to the FBI but also “all cases of criminal sexual conduct.” That means the city and Biden were comparing reported rapes in 2008 (103) with all acts of criminal sexual conduct (229), including rape. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. And in any case those numbers don’t support Biden’s other inaccurate claims — that rape has tripled and quadrupled. Jones did not readily have the figure for criminal sexual conduct cases in 2008 and answers to other outstanding questions, but she promised to get back to us and we will update this item more fully when she does.

Update, Oct. 23: We have now found that rape figures reported by Flint to the Michigan State Police confirm rapes declined in the city from 2008 to 2010. We also found that the broader category of “criminal sexual contact” (CSC) was also down. State Police figures show a 10 percent reduction in total CSC reports between 2008 (242) and 2010 (217). Also, murder, rape and robbery are declining this year in spite of police layoffs in Flint, Mich., according to the most recent official report released by the State Police. For more information, please read our Wire item, “Biden’s Flint Fiasco, Continued.”

Murders Haven’t ‘Tripled’

Now, what about the number of murders in Flint? There is conflicting data on this point, too, but we accept the city’s account that there were 66 murders last year.

The 2010 FBI crime report shows that there were 53 murders in Flint. However, the city statement says that there was an “internal clerical error” in reporting the data to the FBI and that there were actually 66 murders last year. That’s consistent with what has been reported by the local media months before Biden’s visit. On May 23, the day the FBI report came out, the Flint Journal wrote that city officials said there were 65 murders, not 53. A few days later, the Flint Journal wrote that there were 66 murders — a figure others have used as well. It’s clear that the city made an immediate effort to correct the record on murders, something it did not do on rapes.

Even so, Biden was wrong when he said that the murder rate has “tripled.” In 2008, there were 32 murders in a city of 113,462 people for a murder rate of .28 murders per 1,000 residents. In 2010, there were 66 murders and a population of 109,245 for a rate of .60 murders per 1,000. That’s an increase of 115 percent, more than double but not quite triple.

As for the city’s police force, it’s difficult to assess whether Biden was right. The FBI says Flint had 233 full-time law enforcement employees in 2008 and 155 in 2010, a decline of 78 employees or 33 percent. That’s a significant decline, for sure. Biden’s figures, however, show an even greater drop. In Flint, Biden said the number of “sworn officers” declined from 265 to 144, a drop of 46 percent.

Who’s right? We don’t know. We asked the city to provide information about police staffing, too, but the statement issued by the city didn’t address our questions about staffing. It’s possible, for example, that Biden included part-time employees. The FBI provides numbers only for “full-time law enforcement employees,” which it defines as “individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers” and are paid from government funds dedicated for law enforcement.

We should also note that in Philadelphia, Biden said Flint’s police department was “cut more than in half.” He may have been referring to current staffing. In Flint, Biden said the number of sworn officers is now 125 — which would represent a cut of more than half compared with Biden’s 2008 figure (265), but not the FBI’s (233).

Biden is right on his larger point: Police staffing has sharply declined, and the number of murders has sharply increased. But the vice president is clearly wrong when he says the number of rapes have “quadrupled,” when in fact they have gone down, or that the murder rate has tripled, when it has doubled.

If he’s going to quote the former New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a quotation we used when launching this site in 2003 — then he should get his facts straight to support his opinion.

– Eugene Kiely, with Scott Blackburn and Wendy Zhao

Of COURSE they are lies; liberals are the worst kind of liars.   Nor does it matter that the rapes and murders that actually HAVE increased have increased as a direct result of the leftist “Occupy” movements that have sprung up, which if anything makes the LEFT and DEMOCRATS responsible for rapes and murders:

Violent Crime Up in New York City as Police Distracted by Occupy Wall Street
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

As the Occupy Wall Street drug parties protests continue in New York city, violent crime is running rampant as police resources are being allocated to keep occupiers in check, leaving those who really need police protection helpless.

Bullets are flying over Broadway — and everywhere else in the city.
The number of people shot surged 154 percent two weeks ago — to 56 from 22 over the same week last year — and spiked 28 percent in the last month.

Last week tallied another increase in victims — 22 people had been hit through Friday, including the three victims gunned down outside a Brooklyn school Friday.

Last year, only 17 shooting victims were logged for the entire week.

The recent gunplay has now pushed the number of shooting victims this year slightly above last year’s tragic tally — to 1,484 from 1,451 — through Oct. 16.

Four high-ranking cops point the finger at Occupy Wall Street protesters, saying their rallies pull special crime-fighting units away from the hot zones where they’re needed.

Since Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park on Sept. 17, the NYPD has relied heavily on its borough task forces, the department’s go-to teams for rowdy crowds.

But such protest duty takes the special units away from their regular jobs — patrolling public housing and problem spots and staking out nightclubs plagued by violence, supervisors said.

“Normally, the task force is used in high-crime neighborhoods where you have a lot of shootings and robberies,” said one source.

“They are always used when there are spikes in crime as a quick fix. But instead of being sent to Jamaica, Brownsville and the South Bronx, they are in Wall Street.”

So, on top of costing New York taxpayers over $2 million in overtime payments, occupiers are costing people their lives.

Sidenote: New York’s strict gun control laws are also to blame for a spike in violence because they make it impossible for innocent citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals, especially when the cops aren’t around.

Facts and truth are to Democrats what holy water and crucifixes are to vampires; they have a pathological hatred of both.

It doesn’t matter that all the crime and violence have clearly been coming from THE DAMN LEFT, with well over 2,500 arrests of liberals at “Occupy” events versus basically ZERO for all the Tea Party protests.

None of that matters to the left.  They would have to have a shred of honor, or decency, or honesty for stuff like that to matter.  And they are crawling vermin.

Ann Coulter gives a counterfactual “If I were a liberal” here’s how I would act tale that is worth reading.

If I Were a Liberal…
by  Ann Coulter
10/26/2011

If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden’s description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I’d say the Democrats looked “hot and horny” for dead cops — as Chris Matthews​ said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden’s audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama’s jobs bill, police will be “outgunned and outmanned.” (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama’s jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

Which belief bears more relationship to reality?

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man’s wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from “life in prison” and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough — 12 years — for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

Kemp wasn’t caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey’s dead body. Although Kemp was serving a “life sentence” for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.

His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.

Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it’s a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.

What is liberals’ evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama’s jobs bill doesn’t pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won’t be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home — which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That’s why Americans like guns, liberals.)

Obama’s jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion … for public school teachers.

Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being “against” rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).

Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama’s last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.

Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.

Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on “green” buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.

It’s going to be a long wait: The “green” buses were never delivered because the company went out of business — despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.

But if I were a liberal, I wouldn’t acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded “green” projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon.

Democrats posture themselves as the party of tolerance, with their adversaries being the party of rape and murder.  But they have it – just as they have everything – back-asswards.  It is DEMOCRATS who are profoundly intolerant and divisive, and it is DEMOCRATS whose “tolerant” policies toward rapists and murderers have done nothing more than increase the numbers of both.

Leftist Newsweek Editor Admits Obama Wasn’t Ready To Be President. Mind You, He Never WILL BE Ready

September 28, 2011

Who would have guessed that a Marxist who had previously basically only worked as a community agitator wasn’t ready to be president?

Oops.  Hillary Clinton knew Obama was a clueless idiot.

And oops.  Even Obama’s own vice president knew the fool was nowhere near ready to be president.

Well, you voted for him, America.  And now you’re going to pay for it and KEEP paying for it until at least one of your collective braincells starts working again and you vote for a Repulibcan landslide.

Liberal Newsweek Editor Admits: Obama ‘Wasn’t Ready’ to Be President
By Scott Whitlock | September 27, 2011 | 16:18

During an appearance on Morning Joe, Tuesday, Newsweek editor Tina Brown made an off-hand remark about Barack Obama, conceding that the politician “wasn’t ready” to be President. Brown has previously attacked Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for daring to oppose the Obama

While discussing whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will change his mind and run for President, the former New Yorker editor blurted, “Actually, I just hope he doesn’t, because in the end, you know, his tremendous misgivings, maybe he is right. I mean, We had this with Obama. He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.”

[See video below. MP3 audio here.]

On December 31, 2009, Brown mocked Rush Limbaugh, who just hours earlier had been taken to the hospital with chest pains, as a “bad fairy” who ruined the magical story of Obama. She portrayed the radio host as “the bad fairy at Sleeping Beauty’s christening” and added, “…Rush Limbaugh utters the words, ‘I hope you fail.’ ‘I hope he fails,’ he said, and from that moment, the sort of the Pandora’s box opened.”

Her full quote on Limbaugh:

TINA BROWN: It’s got to be that incredible inauguration of Obama….You started the year with this huge festival of hope and renewal and everything is going to be so different now, and then, like the bad fairy at Sleeping Beauty’s christening, Rush Limbaugh utters the words, ‘I hope you fail.”I hope he fails,’ he said, and from that moment, the sort of the Pandora’s box opened, and the rest of the year has been just this big discord and toxic atmosphere in politics and partisan divide and people shouting at each other and the Tea Parties and death panels.”

-Brown announcing her choice for the most important moment of 2009 on NBC’s Today December 31, 2009 a few hours after Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pains.

For more on Tina Brown, see the MRC’s Profile in Bias.

A transcript of the September 27 exchange follows:

7:27am EDT

TINA BROWN: But if he doesn’t feel ready to run- Actually, I just hope he doesn’t, because in the end, you know, his tremendous misgivings, maybe he is right. I mean, We had this with Obama. He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Got four little kids.

BROWN: Maybe Christie isn’t ready. Maybe he feels like everybody wants him to but perhaps he does need longer.

ANDREA MITCHELL: But, Tina, you could also argue that he might have a better chance at this moment of becoming the president of the United States than being re-elected governor of new Jersey and given all of the problems of running that state.

Chris Christie at one point literally asked if he had to die to assure people that he really, really, really wasn’t going to run for president.  This has nothing to do with Chris Christie.

This has everything to do with the useless idiot who clearly has no business sitting in the Oval Office.

Biden Didn’t Say Tea Party ‘Acted Like Terrorists’? Some Other Stupid Things Biden Must Not Have Said

August 3, 2011

Allow me to begin by pointing out that Vice President Joe Biden is a blithering idiot.  When Steve Martin played the role of “Ruprecht the Monkey Boy,” he nailed Joe Biden.

We’ve got this recent report of Joe Biden saying that the tea party members “acted like terrorists”:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Several sources in the room confirmed that Biden said that.  The news story that Biden made the remark has circulated widely.

The remark that tea party Republicans “acted like terrorists” is an ultra common leftwing talking point.  Nevertheless, Biden now denies having said it.

A leftwing site frames that denial rather well for my purposes:

Later, Biden denied his use of the word to CBS News, but he did go on record saying the GOP had “guns to their heads.” Regardless, Biden will certainly come under more fire thanks to the right wing’s disdain for anyone using the term “terrorist” unless they are referring to Muslims, Middle Easterners and/or those who are otherwise brown, but as Americans, maybe we can agree that “emotional terrorism” sounds about right when describing the debt impasse.

That made me laugh because the writer is clearly trying to vilify Republicans for insisting on calling terrorists “terrorists” – and Islamic extremists are responsible for 99.999999999% of all terrorist acts whether you are a clueless idiot or not – while claiming that Republicans who in Democrat Mike Doyle’s words “have made it impossible to spend any money” ARE terrorists.

I’ve talked about this beforeAs have others.  Only conservatives who stop Democrats from spending money are “terrorists.”  The actual terrorists who have murdered so many thousands of people are facilitators of “man-caused disasters.”

It is of course rather ironic to say the least that the Democrats who repeatedly labeled the tea party Republicans as “terrorists” who were “holding America hostage” by holding out on the debt ceiling negotiation actually were more “terrorist” than the tea party Republicans they demonized.

Democrats are hard-core spending junkies who are addicted to massive debt spending the way crack cocaine addicts are addicted to their next fix:

You can see them getting increasingly enraged and paranoid as they are denied that next fix for even a few days.  Cut them off from scratching their itch and the fangs come out.

But I digress.

Since Joe Biden didn’t say the line about tea party Republicans – namely that “They have acted like terrorists” – I thought it would be interesting to consider some other things the moron surely must not have said:

  • “This is a big fucking deal!” –Joe Biden, caught on an open mic congratulating President Barack Obama during the health care signing ceremony, Washington, D.C., March 23, 2010
  • “His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she’s- wait- your mom’s still- your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.” –Joe Biden, on the mother of Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, who is very much alive, Washington, D.C., March 17, 2010
  • “I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. … When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway.” –Joe Biden, providing handy tips to protect against the swine flu and freaking us out, “Today Show” interview, April 30, 2009
  • “An hour late, oh give me a f**king break.” –Joe Biden, caught on a live mic speaking to a former Senate colleague after arriving on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C., March 13, 2009 (Watch video clip)
  • “You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number? I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.” –Joe Biden, speaking to an aide standing out of view during an interview on CBS’ “Early Show,” in the midst of encouraging viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending, Feb. 25, 2009
  • “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.” –Joe Biden, speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus who were gathered in Williamsburg, Va., for their annual retreat, Feb. 6, 2009
  • “Am I doing this again? For the senior staff? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts’.” –Joe Biden, mocking Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ botched effort to swear in Barack Obama as Biden was set to swear in White House senior staff one day after the Inauguration snafu, Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2009
  • “Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart.” –Joe Biden, mistakenly referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, who swore him in as vice president, Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009 (Watch video clip)
  • “Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.” –Joe Biden, Athens, Ohio, Oct. 15, 2008 (Source)
  • “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.” –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn’t president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008 (Watch video clip)
  • “Stand up, Chuck, let ’em see ya.” –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008 (Watch video clip)
  • “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.” –Joe Biden, speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, Sept. 10, 2008 (Source)
  • “A man I’m proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States — Barack America!” –Joe Biden, at his first campaign rally with Barack Obama after being announced as his running mate, Springfield, Ill., Aug. 23, 2008 (Watch video clip)
  • “A successful dump!” –Joe Biden, explaining his whereabouts (dropping deadwood at the dump) to the reporters outside his home, Wilmington, Del., Aug. 20, 2008
  • “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” –Joe Biden, referring to Barack Obama at the beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Jan. 31, 2007 (Source)
  • “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” –Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN, June, 2006 (Watch video clip)

The best – in terms of the stupidest and most vile – Joe Biden quote of all was the one Biden said AFTER “not saying” the thing about tea party Republicans:

Count Vice President Biden among those excited to see Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at the U.S. Capitol yesterday.

Biden, who got advance notice from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that Giffords would show up, said the Arizona Democrat called him “Joe” when she saw him.

“I said, ‘Now we’re both members of the Cracked Head Club,'” Biden is quoted as saying in The Boston Globe.

Giffords was shot in the head Jan. 8 in a rampage during one of her constituent events in Tucson. Six people died.

Obama’s idiot vice president pretty much had to deny calling tea party Republicans “terrorists,” given Obama’s arrogant and hypocritical lecturing on “civility” in the aftermath of the shooting of aforementioned Gabrielle Giffords.  Especially when she provided the extremely un-hateful (and un-Bidenlike) statement:

“I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington,” Giffords said, in a statement from her office. “After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy.”

And of course the Republicans were actually THE reason we ever actually HAD a “solution to this crisis emerge.”  Republicans passed not one, not two, but actually THREE bills to solve the debt ceiling crisis.  Versus Democrats, who passed ZERO.  And versus Obama, who never even came up with a single plan when he is allegedly the leader of the damn country.

But hey, if you want to believe that surely Joe Biden is not so stupid to have called tea party Republicans terrorists, I’m not going to bother to argue with you.

You’re really just not worth dialoguing with.

Demonic Democrats Compare Republicans To ‘Terrorists’ For ‘Obstructing’ Debt Ceiling Vote. LOOK HOW DEMOCRATS ARE VOTING!!!

August 1, 2011

Here we are.  Tomorrow is the deadline.  According to the Obama White House on July 26:

“We are seven days away from an unprecedented financial event in this country’s history. One that could potentially put us towards a depression because the House Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, are unwilling to compromise one inch.”

Let’s see.  Get out my calender.  There are 31 days in July.  That means the date for the Great Depression begins …. tomorrow!

Now, one party has been pretty consistent about comparing the other party to terrorists:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

This utterly vile and one-thousand percent hateful and demagogic tactic is ALL over the place at the Democrat Party and the mainstream media propaganda machine.

But here we are.  Tomorrow we go into the Great Depression according to the Obama position.  Obama is either lying – which means he should be impeached – or he is pointing out that the Congress MUST agree to this deal that is now on the table or … we … will … all … PERISH.

And who are the actual terrorists?  Oh, I see Michelle Bachmann.  Check.  And I see Jason Chaffetz.  And then oh my God the rest of the terrorist who want to plunge America into the next Great Depression are ALL DEMOCRATS.  Lo and behold the TERRORIST DEMOCRATS outnumber the terrorist Republicans 11-2 on a must-pass vote backed by Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

There’s this:

75+ of the “Progressive Democrats”-AKA Socialist Faction of the Democrats in the HOUSE are outright saying they will NOT vote for the BIPARTISAN bill, along with the Democrat BLACK CAUCUS and then “Progressive Democrats” in the SENATE; so, where is that article CNN, ABC, CBS or MSNBC?

So there are just ALL KINDS OF TERRORIST DEMOCRATS who are voting to send America into the GREAT DEPRESSION – and that according to the Obama White House.

And Nancy Pelosi isn’t even bothering to TRY to whip a deal to influence Democrats to vote yes on a bill that Obama says we need to prevent the Great Depression!!!

The Democrat Party has passed ZERO bills to save America from THE GREAT DEPRESSION.  Barack Obama – who told us that we were in danger of the Great Depression if someone didn’t save us – offered ZERO leadership to SAVE US.  And thank God for Republicans who actually passed THREE bills whose votes saved America from the Great Depression that terrorist Democrats (again, that according to the Obama White House) voted to plunge America into.

It never ceases to amaze me just how despicably dishonest and blatantly morally EVIL Democrats are.  Democrat radical extremists outnumber the fringe Republicans at least a dozen to one, and yet these lying demonic hypocrites routinely demagogue the side of rationality as “extremists.”

I listened to Caifornia Democrat Rep. Karen Bass, who said the Democrat Party was planning to wait for the vote to begin because the Democrats want to see the Republicans have to stand up for this bill.  That’s because Democrats are cowardly, slanderous, vile, backbiting, undermining, demagogic cockroach scum who live to let others lead so they can demonize them for trying to do the right thing.

[Update] As of this moment (3:53 PST), 129 Republicans have voted yes ON A BILL THAT WILL PREVENT THE GREAT DEPRESSION compared to 12 Democrats.

[Update 3:55 PST] Now it’s 137 Republicans wanting to avoid a Great Depression compared to 15 Democrats.  47 Democrats are terrorists who want to plunge America into the Great Depression.

[Update 3:59 PST] Now 148 Republicans are joined by only 19 Democrats who aren’t terrorists and who voted against the Great Depression.

[Update 4:00 PST] Gabrielle Giffords – who knows a thing or two about terrorism now – showed up to vote for the bill.  Unlike most of her terrorist Democrat party.

[Update 4:02 PST] Now 153 Republicans who have voted not to have a Great Depression have been joined by only 19 Democrats.

Update 4:03 PST] 160 Republicans don’t want a Great Depression.  Only 21 Democrats feel the same way so far.  57 Democrats are terrorists.

[Update 4:05 PST] 97 Democrats still haven’t voted, proving that what Karen Bass said was in fact correct; Democrats had a strategy to make sure their moral superiors voted and put themselves on the line.

[Update 4:06 PST] The vote just passed with overwhelming Republican support [i.e. Republicans who voted to save America from the Great Depression].

You want to see a terrorist?  You want to see someone who wants a Great Depression?  Just look at the Democrat Party.

The way Democrats held back on such a critical vote is simply cowardly beyond compare.  If you are a Democrat, you are simply a craven human being.

We need moral courage and leadership now more than at any time in our nation’s history, and we have been cursed with Democrats.  The Democrat Party has taken the spirit of its messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, who voted “present” 130 times as an Illinois Senator rather than stand up and LEAD.  From the New York Times, December 20, 2007:

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.” […]

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

And consider going on four years later Obama is STILL an abysmal failure of leadership even according to Hillary Clinton:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

Now consider the entire Democrat House of Representatives basically acting like 193 Obamas.

I’ve said it often before: this is God damn America.  This is a leaderless, rudderless ship about to plunge into an iceberg and sink.

Audacity Of Indifference: Obama Believes American People Too Ignorant, Selfish To Understand Truth About His Path To Economic Disaster

July 9, 2011

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Obama top political advisor David Plouffe said.

That’s good for Obama, given that Obama promised the American people that if his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus porker was passed, unemployment would go down to 7.1% by now, and instead it just rose to 9.2%.

Plouffe’s comment was brought up to White House press secretary Jay Carney, who had even more to say about just how profoundly stupid Obama believes the American people are:

Earlier this week David Plouffe, one of Obama’s senior advisers and an architect of his 2008 campaign, was panned for saying “the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.”

In a condescending way, White House press secretary Jay Carney basically told the press corps  the same thing. Carney told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that Americans talk to each other about their feelings of the economic situation rather than “analyze the numbers.”

“I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers,” Carney said. “They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers.”

It’s too darn bad we don’t know how to read, analyze or think, or we’d know what a total abject failure Jay Carney’s boss truly is.  If we could just learn to read or count, we’d fix Barry Hussein good in 2012.

Carney began this dissertation on the ignorance of the American people by first saying,

“Well, I understand that we’re engaged in the – or rather, the Republicans are engaged in a primary campaign, trying to get some media attention.”

As though that should somehow insulate Obama to whatever they say (we know that Obama has NEVER campaigned, and transcends politics the way the gods transcend humanity, after all).

I came across someone who did a good chunk of the assessment of Obama’s latest job figures and the reality of the pain that increasing numbers of Americans feel as a result of Obama’s economy for me:

You’re a just bunch of dullards who don’t care about unemployment, or the deplorable state of the U.S. economy, or the out of control spending by a socialist kleptocracy.

Here’s the numbers:

The GDP is the measure of a country’s output at any given time. The nation’s $14 trillion+ debt now equals the TOTAL  U.S. GDP, and exceeds the world’s economic output.

The official unemployment estimate is 9.2%, but when you figure in all of the people who simply stopped looking for work or have run out of unemployment benefits that percentage increases.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, now stands at 16.2%.

I analyze Obama’s abject, deliberate destruction of America’s economy, every day.    Jobs, along with businesses are leaving America thanks to the idiotic regulations, high taxes, the trade deficit, government spending, and unions that price their people and jobs right out of the country.  Tens of thousands of jobs have moved to communist China, which means we’re propping up an enemy of the United States with capitalist dollars.

But the American people are too damn stupid to understand all of that.  How can the ignorant dirty masses possibly understand?  It is better that Obama TELL THEM what to think, is it not?  And no one should listen to Republicans, after all; they’re campaigning, you know.  And Obama would never do anything so crass as that.

Still, Carney’s hand-waving dismissal of the Republicans’ points make it somewhat interesting to find out what those points actually ARE:

Tim Pawlenty pointed out that Obama is “dangerously detached.”  That whole “I feel your pain” thing is simply absent from Obama.  He stands far too far above us to feel or understand our mortal pain.  Our duty is to worship our messiah and have faith in him and in his Marxist ideology come what may.

But Mitt Romney probably most hit the nail on the head:

“Today’s abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know – that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama’s closest White House adviser said that ‘unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers’ do not matter to the average American.

“If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment. His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference.”

That opens the door to another thing Obama assumes you are: too selfish to care about other people.

If you have a job, or are getting your welfare check from the government that the government has redistributed from someone who IS lucky enough to have a job, you clearly don’t give a damn about how much millions of Americans are suffering.  That was at the heart of both David Plouffe’s and Jay Carney’s point.  Let me provide the full David Plouffe (did I mention he’s Obama’s TOP political advisor?) statement:

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate; they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’

That’s right: if I’m doing okay, or at least if my family’s getting enough of the welfare pie, screw America.  Who gives a damn if everybody’s out of work?  I’m a DEMOCRAT; I’m getting MINE.  Barry Hussein took somebody else’s money and gave it to me so I’d vote for him.  Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate.

Amity Schlaes made a good point about the Great Depression in her book The Forgotten Man: “The Great Depression wasn’t that bad if you had a job.”  And that was true; particularly if you didn’t give a damn how much other people were suffering as a result of FDR’s terribly failed and immoral policies that kept America suffering for seven full years longer than was necessary.

Obama assumes that a majority of American voters are as selfish and self-centered as he himself has proven to be in his personal life before running for president.  Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party don’t care if millions of Americans are out of work and suffering as the result of their policies.  All they frankly cynically care about is whether they can exploit that suffering to their own political advantage.  And whether the American people are ignorant enough and selfish enough to fall for their lies.

Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

May 28, 2011

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word “nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who – unlike Obama – wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy – Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars ” is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume – irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.

10 Questions Obama Won’t Answer In His Libya Speech

March 28, 2011

1. How is your Libya policy not more “Bush-ish” and hawkish than George W. Bush’s with your unprecedented standard of intervening in the Middle East whenever non-American lives are threatened?  How is this not “humanitarian imperialism” and far worse than anything Bush did given the undefined and open-ended nature of it?

“By almost every metric you can use in terms of being a muscular executive – acting alone without congressional authority, extending the Bush policies overseas, particularly in the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq – he’s been more hawkish than George Bush,” Halperin remarked.

2. Why are we in Libya when even your own Secretary of Defense clearly states that it is not in the United States’ vital national interests to do so?

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States. but it was an interest.”

3. Why are we in the middle of Libya’s civil war, given that the man leading the rebels actually fought against American troops in Afghanistan and his fighters have al Qaeda links?

… Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. […]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…

4. Why shouldn’t you be impeached using your own or now Vice President Biden’s standard that you used to demonize George W. Bush when you were both Senators?

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

Joe Biden: “This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that – I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.”

5. Will we get involved in other wars as dictators dictate?  What about Syria and the Sudan and so many other regions where leaders routinely brutalize their own people?  Will some dictator carefully reading over your speech understand what your policy is?  Will such a dictator realize he’d better not do “x” because he will have to deal with the power of the United States?

6.  How will the mission in Libya not be a complete failure and embarassment to the United States given your announcement that “Gaddafi must go“?  And is it or is it not our policy for Gaddafi to be forced out of power?

7. When exactly – and I mean when exactly – are you planning to leave Libya?

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

8.  Just when did U.S. intelligence say that Libyan tanks and trucks aquired the capacity of flight, such that they are being annhilated by the dozens in your no-fly zone?  Should the inability of American M1-Abrams tanks to fly not be seen as a crisis given this development?  If our vehicles could fly like Gaddafi’s apparently can, wouldn’t that help us with global warming?  And if Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks AREN’T flying, just how does this not exceed the stated U.N. mandate?

9. Why did your Secretary of State just call a clear dictator in Syria who is gunning down his own people in the streets for protesting a “reformer”?  And just why have you personally refused to give the oppressed protestors and people of Syria so much as a single nod of verbal support?  Why is your administration literally supporting a violent terrorist dictator over the oppressed Syrian people?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” this weekend, despite Assad’s atrocious human rights record and the regime’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, which has resulted in over 60 deaths in the past week alone. According to Clinton:

”There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer,” she said.

10. Will you personally apologize to George W. Bush, given that you endlessly demonized him, only to then turn around and go further than he did?  How about your criticism of Bush’s acting unconstitutionally when Bush had far more constitutional support (such as Congress’ authorization) than you did?  how about your criticism of Bush for Gitmo when you haven’t bothered to close it?  Etc.?

[From the Washington Times]: Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery – which makes no sense.

Here’s another set of questions that Obama undoubtedly will not even bother to try to answer in his speech tonight.

There’s a reason Obama’s Libya war has less American approval than any military act in the last four decades.

I know this is actually an 11th question, but it would also be nice if Obama delivered his speech under a giant blow-up of this photo and explained just WTF made him damn fool enough to be the first U.S. president in history to shake hands with Muammar Gaddafi?!?!?