The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

This is almost funny it’s so sad.  Iran has mastered how to defeat America by watching the master at defeating America at work: Barack Hussein Obama.

Analysis Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse
By Paul Richter
June 17, 2014, 4:46 AM|Reporting from Vienna

Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has come to this city hoping to seal a deal on its disputed nuclear program that will finally remove the international sanctions crippling its economy..

But just in case they don’t win that diplomatic victory, they are carefully positioning themselves to come away with a valuable second prize: a win in the ugly blame game that would follow the collapse of negotiations.

Tehran’s team wants to make sure that if its talks with six world powers collapse, many nations would conclude that Iran had been prepared to compromise and the obstacle was the maximalist demands of the United States and its hawkish Israeli and Persian Gulf allies.

The Iranians hope that if many countries come to that view the countries will begin to shed sanctions, allowing Tehran to sell its oil again, and to continue pursuing a nuclear program.

What happens to the sanctions, the world’s great point of leverage on Iran, “depends on who wins the blame game,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who follows Iran for the Eurasia Group risk consulting firm.

Iran’s last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, liked to project an image of thunder and fire. He didn’t look reasonable to the world audience, and didn’t much care.

But the smiling team of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seek to come across as reasonable representatives of a country that deserves more than pariah status.

In the run-up to this fifth round of talks, Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has put considerable effort into convincing the world that they are not the threat to a diplomatic solution to the 2-decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

At a news conference last Saturday, Rouhani stressed Iran’s “goodwill and flexibility” and his hopes that a deal could still be wrapped up by the current deadline of July 20.

He seemed to signal that he was prepared to set aside Iran’s longstanding enmity with the United States, saying it might cooperate with the U.S. on the struggle against Sunni extremists in Iraq. Of course, as a responsible world power, any Iranian step would be consistent with “international law,” he emphasized.

Rouhani also argued that the sanctions are unraveling anyway. “Conditions will never go back to the past,” he said, in an apparent effort to convince oil-consuming nations they will soon be able to resume oil purchases.

Foreign Minister Zarif, meanwhile, has been building a case that Iran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations are reasonable and that the West’s are extreme.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed article last week, Zarif wrote that in 2005, he and Rouhani floated a plan to the West that would have allowed an international panel to regulate Iran’s nuclear program based on whether they thought it was peaceful. Instead, the George W. Bush administration demanded a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, undermining diplomacy and leading to a huge expansion of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They were mistaking our constructive engagement for weakness,” Zarif wrote.

He argued that “small but powerful constituencies” in the West have been calling for tough action against Iran by saying that the country is only a couple of months from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Zarif wrote, Iran would still need “several years” of work to complete all the complex processes needed to turn the fuel into a bomb.

He pointed out that 2005 and 2012 National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the U.S. intelligence community consensus, concluded that Iran wasn’t trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian team is hoping that if the talks collapse, the defection of a few non-Western oil-importing nations, such as China, Turkey or India, might begin an accelerating unraveling of the sanctions.

Obama administration officials contend the sanctions have remained strong since the signing of an interim nuclear deal last November that eased some of the penalties on Iran.

Many countries remain wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in part because of evidence that Iran for years was secretly expanding the program.

Yet the administration has some vulnerabilities in the public relations battle.

One is that many countries are increasingly skeptical of the U.S.’ heavy use of its powerful economic sanctions, which the White House this spring has imposed on Russia because of the dispute over Ukraine.

Many countries, including some in Europe, see Congress’ use of sanctions as excessive.

A senior administration official, asked in a briefing this week about Iran’s efforts to win over world opinion, may have bolstered its argument by warning that if Tehran didn’t yield in negotiations it would be clobbered by more sanctions legislation.

“If Iran does not feel it can make the choices that are necessary, I have no doubt that Congress will take action,” warned the official, who declined to be identified under administration ground rules.

We’ve never seen such a demagogue in the White House.  EVER.  This wicked man ran promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Obama deceived and lied his way into office, pure and simple.  And dug in like a disease-bearing tick, he proceeded to “fundamentally transform America” by abandon any and all compromise and ramming home his Stalinist partisan ideology by whatever means necessary (usually Stalinist means through “executive orders” and simple lawlessness, mind you).

Everything was Bush’s fault.  And as that myth started to wear out, everything was the Republicans’ fault.  Obama is a one-trick pony, and the blame game is his one trick so he keeps doing it over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Our enemies have taken notice of how pathologically weak and cynical Obama is.  And they have taken note of how to be like Obama and use rhetoric to delegitimize truth.

Obama demonized George Bush over EVERYTHING.  Except the way Bush won the Iraq War.  Obama didn’t demonize that; nope: he tried to take credit for it (as I documented in a recent article).  Joe Biden put it this way when Bush was long out of office and everything seemed to be going so, so well:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama BOASTED in 2011 about how wonderfully HIS plan had worked to produce a stable Iraq:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Of course, NO ONE in the Pentagon had agreed with Obama’s plan.  They had BEGGED Obama to keep the sort of residual force in Iraq that John McCain had described America as needing to ensure true long-term security:

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years —

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that —

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans —

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

Had we remained in Iraq the way we remained in South Korea and the way we remained in Japan and the way we remained in Europe, WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

And where we are now is a complete disaster, with Iraq collapsing to terrorists who are – get this – WORSE than al Qaeda while we beg our ENEMY Iran – which is responsible for one third of all American deaths and casualties suffered in Iraq – to help us because we are too weak to help ourselves now.

Let’s look at the timeline of what the military said was wise and what they said was idiotic.  Let’s start with Feb 2, 2009 only days after Obama took office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama was a fool.  He still IS a fool.  He will ALWAYS be a fool.

Note that we DID have an end-run around the just-as-stupid-as-Obama Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: just re-categorize the troops as “support troops.”  And there are PLENTY of such end runs if Obama had wanted them: for example, now, if Obama sends in ANY troops, he could provide cover for them by declaring them to be under the protections of embassy personnel.  He could have ALWAYS played such games had he wanted to.  The fact of the matter is, Obama wanted OUT of Iraq.  He cut and ran, just as we said.  He never TRIED to negotiate anything but his ass not hitting the door on his way out.

Note that back in 2009, literally one day after taking office (January 21), Obama was already IGNORING the superior knowledge and wisdom of the military and frankly even his own experts in his own cabinet that he had chosen.  And he imposed his idiot liberalism on America and now we’re paying for it and will pay far MORE for it soon.

Note that American military commanders ALWAYS assumed that Obama wouldn’t be such a fool as to do what he did, as this article underscores:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

The fact is this: the military demanded that we need to have at least 20,000 men as a residual force; Obama refused to listen to wisdom and ordered the military to draw up a new plan.  So the military scratched their heads at Obama’s arrogant idiocy and returned, asking for at least 10,000 troops.  Again, Obama refused common sense.  Obama was only going to allow a way-too-small force of 3,000.

And when Obama came to the Iraqi Prime Minister with that clearly-too-small-to-do-any-good number, Nouri al -Maliki understood that Obama had absolutely no intention of truly remaining as a stabilizing force in Iraq, that he was cutting and running, that America under Obama was useless, and that he would need to run to the Iranians instead of relying on the Americans.

In other words, Obama lost the war right then and there.  Obama – who wanted OUT – offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that al-Maliki could use, which made it easy for al-Maliki to refuse Obama’s “assistance.”  Hence no status of forces agreement.

Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 – after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

Also, note that they feared not only terrorists taking over Iraq, but the terrorist State of Iran taking over Iraq.  Under Obama’s wicked, demon-possessed stupidity, BOTH ARE NOW HAPPENING.

We learn – if we care about history rather than liberal’s fact-warping rhetoric – that:

Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”

In other words, Obama made the call.  He made the call AFTER Bush had secured victory.  And Obama foolishly made THE WRONG CALL.  And now the Middle East is melting down around us as a result of our Idiot-in-Chief.

Of course, we now know what Obama’s “PLan B” was: to blame Bush for Obama’s idiotic failures and count on the mainstream media to sell it.

As another example of how the Fool-in-Chief annihilated American influence in the Middle East, consider how Obama – after his “red line” debacle – refused wisdom in sending aid to the pro-democratic rebels in Syria as John McCain and Lindsey Graham begged Obama to do a good two years plus ago.

We had a chance to topple Syrian dictator Assad AND install a government friendly to us, but Obama dithered too long and blew any chance we had.  And then – because Obama is a true fool – he involved Russia and Putin who takes Obama to school every time they negotiate.  And Putin maneuvered Obama into literally NEEDING Assad to remain in power to secure a WMD deal that Putin and Assad held over Obama’s head like a carrot while Assad murdered now well over 160,000 of his own people.  And while a vicious terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS – metastasized first across Syria and now into Iraq.

These are all just facts.  It is what happened.

But the way Obama – using his “Iran Plan B” strategy as per the top article above – has handled his debacle is to blame Bush for it.  If Bush hadn’t started the war, we wouldn’t be here.

You know, just like “If I didn’t have an opposable thumb, I wouldn’t have smashed my finger with this hammer.”

It is significant that BOTH of Barack Obama’s Secretaries of State – first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry – voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq.  Because they looked at the clear and present danger that Iraq posed and they looked at the intelligence evidence that Bush was also looking at, and they came to the same decision that any rational human being would come to faced with such overwhelming evidence.

History records THAT as a fact as well.  It also records the fact that nearly sixty percent of DEMOCRATS in the United States Senate (29 of 50) supported Bush’s policy on Iraq in the form of something called “the Iraq WAR Resolution.”  That’s right, kids: “The Iraq WAR Resolution.”  Only to turn on him like treasonous dogs the moment that politics and unbelievable dishonesty and cynicism on the part of the Democrat Party entered into the picture.

Again, note that the two people who served as Obama’s Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – both voted “YES.”

Democrats are demonic, backstabbing traitors.  And if you give them power, they will undermine America every single time.

So Obama is trying to play games and blame pretty much all of the scandals that HIS administration is responsible for on Bush.  Like the VA scandal.

Now Obama’s – OBAMA’S – failed policy is coming home to roost.  And the man who just a few years ago was claiming total credit for Iraq is now using his army of media cockroaches to suggest that Bush so screwed up Iraq that it’s wrong to blame Obama.  BULLCRAP.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush secured victory in Iraq and handed off a safe, stable, secure nation to Barack Obama.  Barack Obama claimed credit for what he received and in so doing claimed ownership of it.  Had his policy not been so wrong, had he not so completely and so arrogantly IGNORED his wise military advisors, we would not be in this mess.

Don’t let Obama play his “Iranian strategy” on this one.

 

Barack Obama, The Worst Of Nixon, The Worst Of Carter, The Worst President In History – And You’re Going To Pay For It

Something occurred to me as I watched yet another massive Obama administration scandal develop and saw yet another dishonest, incompetent response to it.

Barack Obama is truly a historic figure.

But in a really, really BAD way.

Barack Obama manages to unite the very worst of the two worst presidents in modern America.  And in so doing he becomes easily the worst president we’ve ever had.

It occurred to me that Obama manages to combine the very worst of Jimmy Carter AND the very worst of Richard Nixon.

How so?

Well, Richard Nixon was corrupt, but he wasn’t incompetent.

Jimmy Carter was incompetent, but he wasn’t corrupt.

Barack Obama is easily every bit as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and easily far more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

As for Carter-level incompetence, all I have to do is say “ObamaCare website.”  Here was THE signature legislative accomplishment of Obama, and we find him to be completely uninvolved, completely ignorant, and completely incapable of reacting and making ANY changes.  The damn website is STILL fundamentally screwed up, with the “back end” nonexistent and all kinds of security issues.

Again and again and again, Obama has fallen back on the same pathetic strategy of essentially pleading ignorance and incompetence.  He was supposed to know, as president, but he was caught off guard by his own admission again and again.

Nixon merely TALKED about using the IRS to target his political enemies; Barack Obama actually DID it.  What we already know about the IRS scandal is that the orders DID come from Washington – contrary to Obama’s repeated lies – and in fact came from AN OBAMA APPOINTEE (one of only two in the entire IRS organization).  We know that the IRS targeted “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that this targeting was preceded by Obama bitterly demonizing the Supreme Court for its Citizens United verdict (because how dare they “open the floodgates” for the same kind of unholy billion-dollar-money that Obama himself had raised for his election when he was the FIRST presidential candidate from either party to refuse the public matching funds program that had been implemented BECAUSE OF NIXON’S CORRUPTION?

Barack Obama has been a more unholy WHORE for money than any of the last FIVE presidents combined.

Obama massively outspent McCain in 2008:

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.

Obama outspent Romney in 2012 by a 2-1 margin:

Obama spent $52,006,072 compared to Romney’s $26,230,293. The $52M Obama spent is about $12 million more than it cost to build the Lincoln Memorial and $26 million more than Romney spent.

But this demon-possessed man – the essence of “Democrat” is “DEMOn possessed burueaCRAT” – was rabidly furious that the Supreme Court would allow the Republican Party to be the same kind of whore for money that Obama had been.  And he set about to exploit his own power as the Führer-in-chief to countermand the Supreme Court’s verdict and punish his enemies for exercising rights the Supreme Court of the United States declared they had.

The result was the IRS scandal, in which hundreds of conservative groups were targeted and systematically threatened and harassed into silence.  No liberal groups were damaged, according to the Treasury IG.  I repeat, NO liberal groups.  Versus the 300 who were attacked for being conservative.  And “anti-Obama.”

“Punish your enemies and reward your friends,” Obama advised his cockroach army.  That has been his political philosophy throughout his corrupt presidency.

Obama began this dishonest thug practice immediately upon taking office with his massive $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) “stimulus” that he ultimately admitted wasn’t “shovel-ready” after all as he had dishonestly promised the American people it would be when he sold the lie to them.  Call him “Captain Obvious” for that admission.  It is a sad and cynical fact of history that money overwhelmingly went to blue states and areas that voted for Obama and was denied to red states and areas that voted for McCain as a political club rather than as an economic engine.  Nixon never came anywhere CLOSE to that level of political corruption.

Similarly, eighty percent of ALL the money Obama doled out for “green energy” projects was nothing more than cynical and corrupt payoffs to LIBERALS who supported Obama:

The Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreen–SpectraWatt–First Solar–Solar Trust–Abound Solar–BrightSource–LSP Energy–Ener1–SunPower–Beacon Power–ECOtality–A123–Uni Solar–Azure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And few Americans have any idea whatsoever how transparently corrupt Barack Obama is.

Eighty percent of all green energy loans provided by the American people’s stimulus money were given to crony capitalist-fascist Obama donors.  Obama is using the American people’s money as a political slush fund to reward his friends:

A new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer details the startling extent of the cronyism that has pervaded President Obama’s “green jobs” push. According to Schweizer, 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”

“Nixonian” doesn’t BEGIN to describe the magnitude of corruption that has been business-as-usual in the Obama White House.

And as we speak, the Obama Department of Justice has been dishonestly targeting LEGITIMATE businesses they don’t like by exploiting a law that allowed them to go after corrupt business (see also here and here):

Back in March 2013, the Obama Administration unveiled Operation Choke Point, a collaborative effort between the Department of Justice, the FDIC, and the Federal Trade Commission aimed at rooting out bad money; think con artists, drug traffickers, and money launderers who have checking accounts. According to a report filed by the Washington Times, however, it appears that Operation Choke Point is now being used to target legitimate gun retailers.

Take for instance the case of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply, a Miami retailer that just got dropped by BankUnited N.A. last month. Then there’s the case of McMillan Group International, a successful 12-year-old firearms manufacturer from Phoenix that got dropped by Bank of America in 2012. This despite the fact that the company never missed a single payment or bounced a check.

So why is this occurring? The original goal of Operation Choke Point was to closely monitor “high risk” clients. It basically gives the government permission to use a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to request that a bank give up all the info it has on a particular client. Well, it just so happens that the mammoth regulation that is Operation Choke Point is a huge burden. As a result, bankers allegedly feel the need to choke off “high risk” clients to save themselves from any potential hassle.

Imagine the hell that would emerge if a conservative president were similarly dishonestly exploiting a law to attack pro-liberal businesses such as abortion clinics or ObamaCare businesses, etc.  Imagine Bush going after pro-liberal businesses.  If you are a Democrat, you frankly deserve to have your business seized, your home seized, hell, your children taken away as PAYBACK because of what you allowed your Thug-in-Chief to get away with.

This is THE most corrupt presidency America has ever seen, bar NONE.

We saw not only a cover-up, but a cover-up of the cover-up in the Benghazi scandal, where Obama falsely lied to the American people and claimed that he had broken al Qaeda (which we now know is stronger than its ever been and commands more territory than it has ever commanded, contrary to Obama’s dishonest, partisan ideologue lies from hell).

Obama KNEW he was lying:

As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.

And what’s happened since proves the FACT that he materially lied to the American people:

Such that:

Al Qaeda in Iraq’s ranks doubled after the Obama pullout. They have since increased fivefold.

Under Obama, Al Qaeda has not only rebuilt, it has made gains that put it vastly beyond where it was before September 11. All the sacrifices and hard work were undone in a matter of years by Obama.

And:

(CNN) — From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, according to English and Arab language news accounts as well as accounts on jihadist websites.

Indeed, al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.

Well, since Obama made his false and despicable lie to the American people in order to get fraudulently re-elected that al Qaeda was “on the run” and “decimated,” al Qaeda just held it’s largest meeting ever – and did so IN BROAD DAYLIGHT to mock a weakened America.

And what did Obama immediately do after cynically lying about national security – THE most sacred thing a president deals with?  He immediately framed ANOTHER lie to cover up his first gross and disgusting lie.  That the pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound was NOT because of a “broader failure of policy” but rather because of an American citizen who made a Youtube video that somehow caused a “spontaneous uprising” that the administration somehow couldn’t figure out was coming.  Even though it happened on 9/11 and terrorists LOVE anniversaries.

Obama and his entire administration claimed that the talking points they’d sent administration stooge Susan Rice out with had come from the CIA.  But we know that was a LIE:

Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows two days later and on each show, she falsely claimed that an internet video caused a “spontaneous” demonstration that eventually erupted into the deadly violence in Benghazi.

But that never made sense, because the CIA memo never mentioned anything about a video.

So where did she get that completely erroneous information?

Straight from the Obama White House, that’s where.

Mike Morell – a political hack who proved he is a political hack by working for a Hillary Clinton think tank –

Before Mike Morrell left the CIA, he disclosed to the Wall Street Journal his interest in “advising future presidential campaigns.” Morrell then joined Beacon Global Strategies, a firm founded by Phillippe Reines, who has been described as Hillary Clinton’s  “principal gatekeeper.” Morrell is currently a paid contributor for CBS News.

– was forced to admit that the “Youtube video” claim did NOT come from the CIA analysts (who also admitted had completely ignored ALL the field reports that flooded in):

Why, the letter asks, did “Susan Rice… claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?” (Source: CBS News)

In former Deputy CIA Director Morell’s own words:

“When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to.”

Mind you, in pretty much everything else, this dishonest political hack lied like the weasel he is.

We also know that, contrary to the White House’s ocean of lies, yes they WERE TOO the ones who edited the Benghazi talking points for cynical political reasons.

This was WORSE than Watergate because the last I heard, no one was abandoned and left to die horribly during Watergate, versus the first American ambassador since the failed CARTER years to be tortured and murdered along with three heroes who tried to do what Obama refused to do and save their ambassador.

It also shouldn’t therefore surprise you that this “government-as-God” president has spent more borrowed money and thereby risked the bankruptcy of the United States of America than all of America’s presidents COMBINED.  There are a lot of enemies to punish and a lot of friends to reward.  It costs money to be the most corrupt human being who ever lived in all of human history.

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years – spoke as a prophet.  He declared, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

We’re seeing a collapse of America in only a few years that is simply mindboggling.  I remember when I first became interested in Bible prophecy in the late 1970s/early 1980s that my biggest “sticking point” was the fact that America was nowhere mentioned in prophecy.  And how could the mightiest nation in the history of the world not be mentioned in the Bible’s description of the very last days?  And now I have the answer: because America is going down and going down HARD.

And this corrupt, incompetent, disgraceful LIAR is at the very heart of that collapse.

God is damning America.  It’s like the Book of Amos, where God declared that in judgment He would destroy one region with savage drought and another with terrifying floods  (and see here and here).

Now read Amos 4:7-8:

“I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.  People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Word of God declares.  Including divine judgment of a nation for the wickedness of the corrupt and incompetent and dishonest and disgraceful king who slanders God and His character in every act he undertakes as president.

Obama just gave a speech on national security that was universally panned as incoherent by the right and by the left as LUDICROUS.  He kept asserting that America had NOT become weaker, stupidly refusing to understand that if you have to say you’re not getting weaker, IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE GETTING WEAKER.  There is no country on earth that has a better, closer relationship with the United States than when George W. Bush was president; there are NUMEROUS countries that hate us more than ever.  And as you look across the Middle East, such as Syria – where more than 160,000 people are dead and millions displaced along with Obama’s “red line” fiasco – the entire region is in stunning disarray.  Meanwhile Russia and China are either seizing territory as has not happened since Hitler and Stalin and World War II, or they are threatening to do so as their militaries grow more powerful while ours grows weaker.  And the fool actually claimed that our greatest enemy was “climate change.”  When our greatest enemy is a stupid and arrogant commander-in-chief who has made GOD America’s enemy.

I have a feeling I know just how the end will come for America.  Because Obama has recklessly and wickedly and foolishly borrowed so much and devalued the dollar so much, and because he has economically and militarily weakened America so much, it is only a matter of a (probably short) time before America is replaced as the world’s reserve currency.  Already, most of the world’s economic powers are on board to dump the dollar.  When that happens, America won’t be able to print money any more than any other nation is – and we will catastrophically economically implode overnight.  It will be a fitting end to God damn America (see here and here for articles on that).

Realize that when you voted for Obama – and particularly when you voted to actually re-elect him – you voted for the wrath of God on yourselves according to Romans chapter one.  You participated in the holocaust murders of more than fifty-five million innocent human beings and the destruction of marriage and the family in your vote.  You participated in the reckless and demonic devaluation of America’s creditworthiness and military and economic clout that made us a force in the world that could not be bypassed until Obama ruined us.  And as Jeremiah Wright put it, “your chickens have come home to roost.”

As GOP Presidential Candidates Consider ‘Intractable’ Issues Like Immigration, They Have Obama’s Example To Consider Emulating (Just LIE)

Jeb Bush made some waves by taking a stance on illegal immigration (it was ‘love’ that drove them to flout our rule of law) that have many conservatives saying not in this lifetime to his nomination.

And we’re told every single day by the leftist-oriented media talking head propagandists that any true conservative has absolutely no chance of ever winning the presidency.

Mind you, we also have the same ACTUAL history being replayed on a regular basis: Republicans listen to these leftist talking heads and opt for a RINO – as in “Republican In Name Only” denoting a candidate who is nowhere even CLOSE to being a true principled conservative – for their nominee on the assumption that said RINO will be able to capture the hearts and minds of the morally idiotic undecided voters.  But once we have committed to the rationale that the left gives us that a more liberal candidate is a better candidate, the left does the “Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown” trick: they proceed to demonize our RINO and literally give him bloody fangs a la John McCain:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the floor of the United States Senate, assured America that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in years and he had the proof.  The fact that Harry Reid is a diseased liar and a truly demon-possessed creature was left out of the picture.

Democrats play the game of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” when it comes to destroying Republican candidates with lies.  Only of course it’s a TRILLION cuts as the lies and slander and lunatic demonization piles on and on and on.

That said, it truly IS a difficult problem that a conservative Republican nominee for president is in when it comes to issues such as immigration and homosexual marriage and the like.  It often seems, in our truly diseased culture, that the only way a politician has a chance is to be as evil and as toxic as the culture has become.

Ah, but we have an out now.  And we have it thanks to Obama.

If you’re a true, rabid, die-hard, vicious conservative and – for the sake of argument – you truly want to punish your enemies and reward your friends the way Obama has done to his enemies on the right and for his friends on the left – what can you do to get elected?

Just lie, lie and then lie some more.

How did Barack Obama resolve his problem with homosexual marriage in 2008?  He said something that everyone now knows was never true.  He simply lied like hell.  Homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency until homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency.

How about selling major economic plans?  Again, just lie.  Make stuff up.  Obama sure as hell did that with his boondoggle stimulus that promised the moon and delivered a mountain of bovine feces.  Obama added $3.27 trillion to the debt and gave the economy a shot of raw sewage in the arm.

Want to take over a sixth of the economy?  Lie like hell first and foremost.  Hey, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.  And my health plan will reduce costs by $2,500 for a family.  Even though it will do the exact opposite.

National security?  Hey, promise to restore America’s prestige and make the nation stronger and greater when in fact you’re going to do the EXACT freaking opposite.

Start your campaign by promising you won’t run – only to lie.  Assure the country that you “can unequivocally say” you won’t do what you will do.  Fund your campaign by promising that you’ll take federal matching funds.  And then break your promise.  Tell America you’re going to be a new politician and then hold more fundraisers than the previous five presidents COMBINED.  Raise more money than any politician who has ever lived while demonizing and slandering your opponent for the money he’s raised.  Just make sure that whatever the hell you say you’re going to do that you use the IRS as a thug agency to rabidly attack your opponents.  Because if being a dishonest liar without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency, without any virtue of any kind worked so well for Obama, why the hell not?

If you follow Obama’s example, you can say WHATEVER you need to say, get yourself elected, and then do whatever you’re going to do.  All the while demonizing everybody else around you.

So, yeah, say the Jeb Bush line.  Hell, say it at least 37 times on major venues.  And then after you’re elected, deport every damn ONE of the up-to 20 million illegal immigrants.  I mean, kick down every damn door in America and drag them out screaming by their hair just because it’s more fun to drag them out that way.

Here’s how a Republican candidate for president ought to campaign: just mirror Obama and be as dishonest with what you are actually doing as imaginable.  What did Obama do?  He’s a pathologically dishonest liar who wanted to present himself as caring for illegal immigrants on the one hand while dealing with the clear and present danger they posed on the other.  So Obama claimed he was only attacking CRIMINAL illegal immigrants.  When in fact he was doing no such thing: the cockroach was letting them go free to prey on Americans again and again.  And we now know that Obama was dishonestly inflating his deportation numbers all along – because he is the DEFINITION of “dishonest.”  Here’s that:

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. […]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

You see, being a pathologically dishonest liar, Obama relied on the worst form of lie – cooked statistics (just like he has done with his health care takeover):

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

“Correct,” Mr. Johnson confirmed.

That would mean that in a one-to-one comparison with the final years of the Bush administration, deportations of those same people under Mr. Obama had actually fallen, according to immigration analysts who have studied the data.

So if you are the conservative mirror of Obama, with dishonesty being your common ground, here’s what you will do: you will kick down doors and you will drag out every single illegal immigrant in America by their damn hair while their children scream for their mommies and daddies.  But you will say you will do (are doing and have done) just the opposite.  That way, you can be like Obama and have your political cake and get to eat it too.

Just lie, lie, LIE like the devil Obama.  Say whatever you want.  Say illegal immigrants flooding into America is “an act of love.”  And then ruthlessly target them the way the Obama thug IRS targeted the tea party while announcing how loving you are.

There you go.  Intractable political problem solved.  And all it takes is the willingness to be the worst liar in the history of the human race (after Obama, who has set the bar of deceit and dishonesty so high no one will ever break his record).

If you have the spirit of Obama, you will promise to be a fundamentally different politician who will transcend politics and elevate America.  And then you will crush your enemies, break them, divide them, and drive them off the field.  Break America into fractured, divided pieces as long as you end up with at least one more piece than your enemies.  And ride on, you son of a gun.

Now, I write that knowing the future because I know the Bible.  It won’t happen.  It won’t happen because America has degenerated into a place where liars and their lies will win, and Democrats are just better at being liars while their base is better at tolerating lies.   Republicans can’t win that game any better than they can win the socialism game by promising to out-socialist the Democrats to buy whatever votes they need to buy.

I think – maybe even dare to hope – that Republicans will have a great 2014 midterm.  But by 2016, the consistent liars will win the day (in other words, President Hillary).

You see, there comes a point when a culture is so toxic that there are simply no good options.  We’ll have only “choices” like we had in 2012 (where we could either elect a man who believes that Christ Jesus is Lucifer’s brother or we could re-elect a man who actually IS Lucifer’s brother).  And given the choice between bad and worse, a wicked people will generally choose “worse.”  Until a Hitler comes and then until the end.

God knew and knows the end from the beginning.  He knew that America would rise on godly values and He knew that America would fall as the people became sufficiently wicked as to vote for a Democrat Party that would pervert and piss on every virtue the Word of God holds dear.  That’s why America is nowhere to be found in Bible prophecy as we literally vote to destroy ourselves in the suicidal and nihilistic act of cutting ourselves off from God’s blessing.  God knew that America was going to go down and go down hard.

Ultimately, big government liberals will transition to the ultimate big government liberal: the Bible calls him “the beast” and he will take over the global economy just as every liberal as dreamed about.  Like Obama, he will promise the world and make political progress by skillfully demonizing his enemies.  But he will lead the world into literal hell on earth.

 

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I’ve been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary’s job – and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor’s salary – is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are “suckers” as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let’s leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor – IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

¹³ When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. ¹⁴ When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

¹⁵ As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

¹⁶ Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

¹⁷ “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

¹⁸ “Bring them here to me,” he said. ¹⁹ And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. ²⁰ They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. ²¹ The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here – they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read “Democrat”] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

Obama Administration Turns Down Inexpensive And Successful Solution To Illegal Immigration Invasion Even When It Is Offered To Government FREE

This story ought to make you angry.

When we were trying to build the fence, Democrats – you know, the people who keep demonizing Republicans as “obstructionist” – blocked it at every turn and said it wouldn’t work.  And we were responding that it worked better than NOTHING.  Well, now there’s a REAL solution that is inexpensive and would literally be able to completely stop ALL illegal immigration dead if it were only implemented.

Well, now we know one thing: Democrats don’t WANT to stop illegal immigration.  Democrats WANT illegal immigration; they want as much illegal immigration as they can possibly get.  They want it because they have cynically and frankly treasonously concluded that they can exploit it politically.

High-Tech Solution to Border Problems Ignored
By Chuck Holton
CBN News Military Reporter
Tuesday, June 26, 2012

U.S.-MEXICO BORDER — Government spending to secure the United States’ southern border with Mexico has surged since 9/11 with mixed results.

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is down, while drug smuggling has only gotten worse.
 
John Ladd works on the same Arizona ranch his family has owned since 1896. His 14,000-acre lot includes 10 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Out there, you don’t have to look far to see the effects of illegal immigration.
 
“I’ve had a group of people, at least one group a day since Thanksgiving. I’ve been robbed, I’ve had them in the house,” Ladd told CBN News.
 
But migrant workers aren’t the real problem. What worries Ladd most is the drugs crossing onto his land.
 
“We’ve had five drive-thrus with 14 trucks total since February of this year,” he said.
 
According to government estimates, only about 15 percent of those illegally crossing the border are caught. And the fence isn’t making much of a difference.
 
“This has been a smugglers point for a hundred years. They cut the mesh out at the bottom and the side and across the top, and then they open it up and ramp over,” Ladd explained. “This is a little bit better than a seven strand barbed wire fence, but not much.”
 
Hi-Tech Possibilities
 
Arlington, Texas, is home of the Cowboys stadium, and one of the most technologically advanced municipalities in the country.

CBN News met a man there who developed the security system for the Super Bowl, and may also hold the key to securing the southern border.
 
“The fence is a wonderful tool if you want to stop wildlife, if you want to stop livestock, if you want to stop somebody for 30 seconds,” Dan Hammons, owner of Hammons Enterprises, explained.
 
“We think the border needs to be a line in the sand as opposed to a wide area,” he added.

“If a person crawls over that fence or crosses that border illegally, we have a wide array of sensing technologies that will set off an alarm and will turn on a camera on a node tower,” Hammons said. “So you can determine, is it a person, is it a deer, is it a cow.”
 
“With our system, I’m confident that we are going to detect 100 percent of the people crossing that border illegally,” he boldly claimed.
 
Key Benefits
 
Hammons’ system also costs about $1 million less per mile than a border fence. While there are already many cameras on the border, there is a major difference in this network: bandwidth.
 
“We don’t have to compress high-definition video. We can pump thousands of video streams thousands of miles, and you are looking at it in true real time,” Hammons explained.
 
“So it gives us the ability in a border environment to actually track somebody with a video camera all of the time for as far north as we want to go,” he said.
 
The objective is to give U.S. Border Patrol more accurate and timely information, which in turn keeps them safe.

“We’re going to add a layer of safety for these men and women that are on the border every day putting their lives at risk,” Hammons said. “We’re not going to send one person to apprehend a group of people armed with AK-47s.”
 
Ladd loves the idea because of the accuracy and timeliness that Hammons’ system could provide.
 
“Absolutely in favor of that technology, but yet we can’t seem to come to terms that that’s the way to do it,” Ladd said. “And so we depend on a 10-foot wall that an old woman can climb over with help.”
 
“On our ranch… the length of it, you could have one guy sitting at a computer module and he’d be able to monitor that whole 10-and-a-half miles. One person!” Ladd continued.
 
Government Cold Shoulder
 
Still, decision makers in Washington have repeatedly turned down Hammons’ ideas.
 
“They have shut the door in our face,” he said.

“We offered to do this for them for free. We wanted to build a three-mile section of it for free. No cost or obligation to the government, all we wanted was an operational evaluation,” Hammons recalled.
 
He hinted that the system’s potential may be viewed by some as a political problem.
 
“We’re going to be able to tell the truth about what’s going on on the border,” Hammons said. “We’re going to be able to show the American public exactly what is happening down there.”
 
In the meantime, ranchers along Arizona’s border feel like they’re stuck in a war zone.

“Regardless of what Homeland Security and Border Patrol says, the border isn’t as safe as it’s ever been,” Ladd said. “There’s more drugs coming right now than ever before.”
 
“A guy driving a Border Patrol truck up and down the fence isn’t going to cut it,” he added.

Watch the report here.

Senators John Kyl and John McCain of Arizona are both livid over Obama’s response to the Supreme Court verdict allowing police to question suspects about their illegal immigration status by refusing to allow the federal government to share immigration status dat with state law enforcement.  McCain rightly pointed out that it was the most childish behavior he had ever seen coming from a president.  And Kyl pointed out that the president’s reasoning for his executive dictates that amount to amnesty for all illegals other than those who had committed felonies (i.e. illegals can commit all the misdemeanors they WANT with impunity) were baseless by the administration’s own previous statements.  Obama is justifying his decisions on the premise that there are insufficient resources to remove illegal immigrants; but when the US Senate has told Obama they would increase federal border security resources if the government needed them, the administration has previously stated that they have all the resources they NEED to enforce the laws which require the federal government to act to remove ALL illegals.  As we speak, Obama is continuing this bogus charade: on the one hand he’s claiming resources are too scarce to follow the law which requires him to remove every illegal immigrant the system comes across; at the same time he is now claiming that he doesn’t need any help from the state of Arizona whatsoever.

And now we find out that Obama is trying to exploit illegal immigration and the misery and crime that follow from it in order to try to win re-election.

This is an administration that has compared illegal immigration to jaywalking.  This is an administration that views Obama as being above the law, as being a king who can abrogate the law and do whatever he pleases.

Barack Obama is merely a new variant of fascist.  Where Hitler exploited white Aryan racist policies to benefit politically, Obama is cynically exploiting black and Hispanic racist policies to benefit politically.  In a nation whose premise has been that it is a realm of laws in which justice is supposed to be blind to the race and to the political party of those who break it, this is a stab in the guts of everything our nation is supposed to be.

Democrat Lies About Their Key Role In 2008 Economic Collapse Reaches Laughable Proportions

In 2008, our economy collapsed.  So Americans elected the people who had engineered the collapse.  Because apparently we have the same nihilistic desire to go the way of the Dodo bird that every single other great culture in history degenerated to before their collapses.

Barney Frank: The Community Reinvestment Act Was a ‘Republican Failure’
By Jim Geraghty
Posted on October 12, 2011 9:19 AM

In today’s Wall Street Journal:

Asked who was to blame for the 2008 financial crisis and whether any bankers should have been prosecuted, Mrs. Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put the onus on the federal government, with Mr. Gingrich suggesting that former Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, should both be jailed.

“It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans . . . that pushed the community reinvestment act,” said Mrs. Bachmann, citing what she considered the causes of the housing meltdown.

Mr. Frank released an emailed statement in response: “In fact, Chris Dodd and I were in the minority from 1995 until 2006, so Gingrich is blaming us for Republican failures.”

So panicked is the response from Congressman “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing” Frank that he forgets that from May 2001 to the end of 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate and Dodd was the second-ranking Democrat on the committee after chairman Paul Sarbanes.

It is also revealing that Frank believes that Bush-administration assent to policies he supported means that the consequences of those policies are, ipso facto, “Republican failures.” As Peter Wallison lays out on the Journal’s op-ed page, you can blame Wall Street for reckless gambling on mortgage-backed securities all you want, but the risk of the mortgage-backed securities never takes off unless the federal government starts pushing lenders to lower their standards for worthy borrowers. Sure, the big-bank investors never should have gone dancing in the minefield, but the minefield was set up by federal policies that encouraged massive loans to “borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.”

It is rather amazing that with laughably inaccurate defenses like this, Frank is still considered a significant voice in the Democratic party today.

First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 during the Carter administration the last time Democrats controlled EVERYTHING.  For the Democrat control of the House, see here; for the Senate, see here).  It is yet another of so many other examples of the clear and present danger that Democrats pose to the United States of America.

The Community Reinvestment Act was radically and insanely expanded in the last two years of the Clinton Administration.

The problem that Republicans had in doing away with the atomic bomb buried in the underbelly of the once-free market mortgage system was that to do away with CRA would have been decried as “racist.”  Because Democrats are vile cockroaches and that is basically the only play in their playbook.

For his part, Barney Frank was successful SEVENTEEN TIMES in shielding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulation (at least in part so his homosexual lover could have a job).  The article I link to includes an interesting image:

The Fact of the matter is that Democrats were crawling all over this economic collapse:

Bill Clinton admitted:

“I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

But the same Democrats who refused to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” became hard-core obstructionists in blocking Bush from doing ANYTHING to save our economy even as Republicans like John McCain repeatedly warned that America was the Titanic and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two giant icebergs.  And then after the collapse that Democrats did everything they could to cause, they were ready to demonize Bush and the very people who had warned of the impending disaster and who had repeatedly tried to avert that disaster.

The mainstream media refused to hold liberals accountable for the failure of liberal policies because the mainstream media are a) liberals themselves and b) outright propagandists.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded to gargantuan proportions, controlling well over 60% of the mortgages in America.  When Fannie and Freddie collapsed FIRST BEFORE ANY OTHER BANKING INSTITUTION, that collapsed initiated a loss of confidence in the private lenders because those lenders had purchased billions in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s toxic assets.

If you EVER want to have a functioning economy again, never elect another Democrat for so much as rat catcher.  Repudiate racist race-based policies that are socialist interferences with the free market, and allow the free market to make loans to people – and ONLY to the people – who can afford to pay those loans back, regardless of the color of the applicant’s skin.

Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America.  And he’s done so.  If you like blacks and poor people being crushed, than you ought to be happy about Obama’s “fundamental transformation.”  Because that is exactly what the man has brought with his idiotic Marxist policies.

Christine O’Donnell Fires Back At McCain: Don’t Call Me A Tea Party Loser You RINO LOSER

John McCain took it upon himself to do everything he could to help Democrts ridicule and marginalize the Tea Party and Tea Party candidates yesterday.

I supported John McCain’s presidential bid because as bad as we was, he was still better than the now-documented failure of Barack Obama.  But I held my nose to support him – at least until he nominated Sarah Palin.

John McCain ran a dismal and pathetic campaign.  On my view, he was far more concerned with maintaining his “Senatorial dignity” than he was with saving America from a dangerous Marxist fraud.  As just one example, consider his elitest refusal to go after Barack Obama for his twenty-plus years spent in a racist, Marxist and anti-American “church” under the “spiritual mentoring” of a wicked Jeremiah Wright.  Even Obama said that attack would be legitimate, but John McCain was far too hoity toity to pursue it.

So when McCain went after Christine O’Donnell as an example of the failure of the Tea Party, O’Donnell responded thusly:

“I think that it is inappropriate to insult the judgment of the majority of Republicans in Nevada and Delaware and that the implication that nominating RINOs somehow means we win was irrefutably disproven by McCain’s own presidential candidacy debacle. After that nightmare, McCain had to veer right so fast he almost got whiplash from all his flip-flopping just to keep his Senate seat. It doesn’t help him to attack those conservatives and Tea Partiers who graciously gave him another chance to keep his job.”

And let me say, “You GO, girl.”

I agree that Christine O’Donnell WAS a weak candidate, but that weakness had everything to do with her lack of political experience and a few documented personal issues, and NOTHING to do with her Tea Party policy views.  When she did her famous/infamous “I am not a witch” ad, what the hell did that have to do with her Tea Party beliefs???’

Democrats always tell us that RINOS are “their greatest threat.”  They did it with McCain, and they are doing it now with RINO Jon Huntsman.  And RINOS are fool enough to believe Lucy and keep trying to kick the football.

What they don’t understand is that Democrats know how to morph RINOS into bloody right-wing bogeymen who will take away all the socialist benefits the sugar-daddy Democrats fought for:

Conservatives know the RINO is a RINO and have no enthusiasm for the useless RINO whatsoever, and the RINO doesn’t have enough of a principled stand on anything to garner powerful support from anywhere else.

And thus down goes the RINO.

I supported John McCain for president and gave money to his campaign.  He STILL keeps hectoring me for money.  I supported Scott Brown and sent money to his campaign, too.  And HE still keeps hectoring me for money.

One went down in flames, the other pulled off a win.  But neither one of them ended up doing a dang thing that made my donation worthwhile; and I won’t be making those mistakes again.

Prior to his run for the presidency, I largely regarded John McCain as an embarassment whose sole quality had been his suffering as a POW during the Vietnam War.  And now, since his failed run for the presidency, I AGAIN largely regard John McCain as an embarassment whose sole quality was his suffering as a POW during the Vietnam War.

The bottom line on RINOS is that you simply cannot trust them to take a strong and courageous stand when the heat is on.

John McCain walked onto the Senate floor and violated Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

And why this man was so willing to attack Christine O’Donnell when he couldn’t bring himself to attack Barack Obama when it counted is utterly beyond me.

 

Biased Mainstream Media Yet Again Proven To Be In The Tank For Obama, Democrats

A couple of links scream about the rabid left wing media bias.  The first:

Diane Sawyer Steals Hannity, Fox Credit on Wright
By Jeffrey Lord on 6.2.11 @ 8:59AM

It was so brazen it was amazing.

ABC Anchor Diane Sawyer sits across from Bill O’Reilly last night and casually says that ABC broke the story about the tapes featuring the sermons of now radioactive and decidedly ex-Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright.

“You’re talking to the network…Obama White House remembers this… that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes.”

The implication?

ABC News was Johnny-on-the-spot on the story of then-Senator Obama’s now infamous — and ex — pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In March of 2008.

Remember that date. March — 2008. Here’s the link to the story, filed on March 13 by ABC’s Brian Ross

This remark came about in the course of a conversation with O’Reilly in which Sawyer, discussing the role of ABC News in the last presidential campaign, insisted that her network was not populated by liberals who tilted the news leftward. O’Reilly had cited a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs on the network news coverage of the Obama-McCain campaign that showed the tilt in favorable coverage for Obama over McCain as follows:

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

ABC had fared best of the three broadcast networks, but the point of liberal media bias — the kind of reporting that dates as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign — stood. So O’Reilly persisted.

And out popped the above statement on Jeremiah Wright.

Let’s be clear here. Sawyer used the word “tapes” — and strictly speaking she is correct.

The problem comes with the context — in which she is clearly trying to imply that ABC was the proverbial dog with a bone in uncovering the relationship of Wright to his famous congregant, and what the implications might be for the country if a man who sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years listening to Wright’s leftist political rants were elected president.

Bluntly put — this is poppycock.

The man — and the network — that did the background research on this was, yes indeed, Sean Hannity and Fox News.

On February 28, 2007 — over a full year before ABC first aired its Wright story — Hannity had located columnist Erik Rush, who had written an article on Senator Obama and his church. He put Rush on the air that night.

The very next night, Hannity had managed to corral Wright himself on his Fox show with liberal Alan Colmes. Here’s the clip.

Out poured the tale of Wright’s devotion to Black Liberation Theology and the radical writings of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. From this initial work the connections of Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi were uncovered and more.

And on it went.

The role of ABC News here?

Zip, nada, zero.

And yet plain as can be, there sits Diane Sawyer, the anchor of ABC News, on the set of Fox’s O’Reilly Factortrying to pretend ABC was a prime mover in Hannity’s story — a Fox story that surely would never have seen the light of day anywhere had it not been for Hannity’s tenacity in digging it out and putting it on TV. And, as regular viewers will recall, being snickered at while doing it — snickering that stopped when Obama finally felt so much pressure on Wright he stopped going to the church and felt the need to publicly rebuke the man he had once said was like an “uncle” to him.

Ms. Sawyer insisted her network would be providing “fantastic coverage” of the 2012 race, citing the liberal ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as a key member of her team.

If this is an example of the work to come from ABC News on the 2012 presidential campaign… well, we report, you decide.

The second:

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Back of the Book” segment  tonight: As we reported last night, elements of the national liberal media have  begun their campaign to re-elect President Obama. The attacks on Fox News are  being stepped up, and we used an example of NBC News correspondent Andrea  Mitchell deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for criticizing Mr.  Obama.

Here now to talk about the Obama advantage in the media, Fox News political  analyst Charles Krauthammer, who is in Washington this evening. So how much of  an advantage? Because in my lifetime covering politics, 35 years now, I’ve never  seen a media as rabidly invested in a president as the liberal national media is  in Mr. Obama. Have you?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I  think that is true, and you can see it in a Pew study, Pew Center for Excellence  in Journalism that they did in 2008 election. They found that of the three cable  networks, Fox played it absolutely right down the middle, the same amount of  favorability to McCain as to Obama. CNN three times as favorable to Obama as to  McCain; MSNBC 5 to 1. So, I mean, and that was four years ago. Interesting, to  give you an idea of how biased the media is, when it issued a press release on  that study, Bill, it played it as CNN was the cable norm, with MSNBC on one side  and Fox on the other deviating from the norm. The norm being the pro-Obama bias  of CNN, rather than the norm that any objective American would say, which is  what Fox has done, which was to play it right down the middle.

O’REILLY: Sure. Now, there was another study done by the  Center for Media and Public Affairs that showed the network broadcasts — CBS,  ABC and NBC — were 68 percent positive for Obama, Senator Obama, then-Senator  Obama, 32 percent negative. For John McCain, it was the reverse: 36 positive, 64  negative. So, my contention is that nothing is going to change this time around.  That the national TV media and the big urban newspapers, like The New York  Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, will all be trying to get  President Obama re-elected. So the question then becomes: How much of an  advantage is it for the president?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it’s a major advantage, but you’ve got to  remember this. The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side.  They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the  presidency seven out of the last 11 elections, and that’s because what  Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a  center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So  what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major  advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have  because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal  message.

And as bad as it appears to be with the tilt in favorable coverage for liberal Barack Obama for, well, somewhat less liberal John McCain – (and here is the result of the study again):

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

– I believe it is actually FAR worse than that.

The reason I say that is there’s an implicit assumption that isn’t true; namely, that both John McCain and Barack Obama had exactly the same negative baggage or positive qualities.  As an example, if Tom and Dick had pretty much the exact same record, and the press covered Dick more favorably than Tom, you’d certainly be able to show bias.

But what if Dick had a long history of radical associations, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis, and including racist un-American bigots such as Jeremiah Wright and terrorists such as William Ayers?  What if Dick had all the political baggage of a Chicago thug, including dirty deals with criminal scumbags such as Tony Rezko?  What if Dick’s wife had all KINDS of dirty baggage?  What if Dick could be documented to have a radical history of being a communist?  Just as a couple of examples?  Would it be fair or legitimate to expect the coverage to be evenly “favorable” versus “unfavorable,” or would FAIR and OBJECTIVE coverage have skewed dramatically against Dick???

In the case of Barack Obama, the guy who deserved virtually ALL the negative coverage got virtually NONE.  Versus war hero John McCain who should have received very little unfavorable coverage and got virutally nothing BUT???

And that same overwhelming media bias that got Obama an undeserved victory and the presidency in 2008 is just as biased today in defending the failure’s record.

Birth Certificate Ball In Barry Hussein’s Court

The way the following ABC article depicts this, it is a huge Donald Trump screw-up in which he demands Obama’s birth certificate only to fail to be able to produce his own until the media correctly pointed out his error.

I actually think it was a stroke of genius: Donald Trump was confronted by a media which couldn’t wait to buy whatever Obama produced.  They pointed out, “That’s not legitimate!”  And then Donald Trump was able to produce his official certificate of birth.

Now it’s your turn to do the same, Barry H.  Do what Trump did: show us your actual long form birth certificate like the media demanded that Donald Trump do.  And which Donald Trump DID.

It’s no big deal at all – if you’ve actually got one.

Take Two: Donald Trump Releases Official Birth Certificate
March 29, 2011 1:11 PM

ABC News Michael Falcone reports:

Donald Trump learned the hard way this week that if you’re going to call on the president to release his official birth certificate, you’d better do the same.

Trump, who has been putting pressure on Obama lately to make public his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, decided to set a good example and release his own on Monday. Only problem was, the document that Trump provided to the conservative Website Newsmax wasn’t his actual birth certificate, but rather a  “hospital certificate of birth.”

On Tuesday, Trump, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2012, sought to correct the oversight, providing a copy of his official birth certificate issued by the New York City Department of Health to ABC News.

See a larger version HERE.

It shows that “Donald John Trump” was born June 14, 1946 in Jamaica Hospital in Queens.It lists his father as Fred C. Trump and his mother as Mary Mac Leod. The date of the report is listed as June 14, 1946.

The image came with an accompanying memo from a member of Trump’s staff. 

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. “One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

(Click Here to see a photo of Donald Trump’s hospital certificate of birth, obtained by the Newsmax on Monday.)

Trump has been turning up the volume on his calls for Obama, who has been the target of allegations that he was not born in the United States by so-called “birthers,” to release his official birth certificate.

“This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News on Monday. “I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it’s turning out to be a very big deal because people now are calling me from all over saying please don’t give up on this issue.”

The Obama campaign released a “certification of live birth,” which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one, in 2008.

Let’s take that last paragraph first: “The Obama campaign released a ‘certification of live birth,’ which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one…”

Read the following and tell me:

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time.^{[citation needed]} Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration.”

In other words, the short form is NOT an actual birth certificate; it is rather just a piece of paper that says that somebody somewhere says that an actual birth certificate exists.  That is a rather major difference when the existence of said actual birth certificate is in doubt.

Pardon my metaphors, but there is a joke that bears repeating here:

Q: How do you say “f**k you” in Bureaucratese?

A: “Trust me.”

Now add to the fact that the short form is nothing more than a statement that the long form surely exists somewhere this fact:

Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president’s re-election chances
Posted: January 18, 2011
8:05 pm Eastern

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.

“If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama’s birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president,” he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby’s birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama’s birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

Abercrombie is a liberal Democrat.  He has every interest – and he admits he has that interest – in finding that record if it exists.

The problem is that it doesn’t seem to exist.  And Abercrombie officially gave up on his windmill-tilting knight’s errand.

Here’s documented proof from Puerto Rico that birth certificates are relatively easy to falsify.  The difference amounts to the fact that at least these Puerto Ricans like Sonia Aguilera actually HAD birth certificates, bogus as many of them were.  Obama’s got squat.

Liberals have pointed to a birth announcement in a newspaper as proof that Obama had to be born in the United States.  But that is beyond easy to falsify.  Here it is: “Obama’s mother called her grandparents from Kenya to announce that she has just given birth to a son named Barack Hussein Obama.  Her parents, in turn, call the newspaper and place a birth announcement in the Hawaii paper.  Bingo, proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

We don’t have any actual record that Obama’s birth certificate existed in 1961.  But there is reliable evidence that telephones existed back then.

What is funny is that the Nigerian millionaire email scammers have more documentation backing up their scams than Obama does backing up his:

Quite often, the Nigerian Scam email will contain legitimate information concerning a real political dissident’s death or imprisonment. This may be enough verification for a skeptical recipient. The second part of the classic Nigerian Scam begins when a recipient agrees to send confidential financial information to the sender in order to receive the money. From this point on, the Nigerian Scam artist will either use this private information to clean out the victim’s entire bank account or send a fake cashier‘s check as a partial payment.

But that is no longer the only question.  There is the separate but clearly related matter of Obama’s Social Security Number:

Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation
Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

“Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

“It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

And all you need to pass of a massive hoax like this is two liberal states – and these are two of the most liberal states in the nation – and a press that flew thousands of miles to Anchorage to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage but which utterly refused to go next door to look at Obama in Chicago.  And that is precisely what we have.

For the record, Democrats argued that John McCain did not qualify for the presidency of the United States because he had not been born in the United States.  That was set to rest when John McCain produced his birth certificate.  John McCain was born in a US military hospital (US territory) in the Panama Canal Zone area in 1936 to an American father (a US Navy officer) and to an American mother.

I am doing nothing more than Democrats did in demanding Obama’s birth certificate.  The differences are significant: we KNOW that Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen, and we further KNOW that Obama has not produced a birth certificate.

At this point, I do not believe that Obama is qualified to be president either in regard to his complete lack of experience, or in regard to his dangerous un-American socialist agenda, OR IN REGARD TO HIS BIRTH.

Abercrombie put it well:

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

I agree with the liberal Democrat Governor of Hawaii who had every interest and all the necessary power to find Obama’s actual birth certificate if it existed.  Yet we DO have these “political implications.”  Because Obama won’t – or more likely CAN’T – produce his birth certificate.

At this time, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Barack Obama as the lawful president of the United States until he resolve these very legitimate questions.

Produce or resign.

Somebody, somewhere, please get this Post Turtle out of the American people’s White House.

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

Who destroyed the economy in 2008?  Democrats say it was Bush.  Why?  Well, because he was president, that’s why.

Why – when applying the same logic – Barack Obama STILL isn’t responsible for any of his economic mess fully two years after George W. Bush left office is anybody’s guess.

But stop and think.  The primary cause for the 2008 economic meltdown was a downturn in the housing market and the underlying mortgage market.

At the core of that meltdown was GSEs (that’s “Government Sponsored Enterprises” to you) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has always been that it was – and remains – a social welfare institution masquerading as a financial institution.  And they have made beyond-godawful “financial” decisions because their true loyalty has always been with socialist policies rather than financial ones.

Let’s look at Fannie and Freddie’s current picture:

Fannie, Freddie’s $685B fix
Bloomberg
Last Updated: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010
Posted: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage firms operating under federal conservatorship, may cost taxpayers as much as $685 billion as the US covers losses and overhauls the housing-finance system, Standard & Poor’s said.

Costs for resolving the two government-sponsored entities could reach $280 billion, including $148 billion already delivered under a US Treasury Department promise of unlimited support, New York-based S&P said yesterday in a research report. The government may spend an additional $405 billion to capitalize a replacement for the two companies, which own or insure more than half the US mortgage market.

“It appears unlikely in our view that housing and mortgage markets will be able to operate normally without continuing and substantial government involvement,” S&P said, citing the GSEs’ growing portfolio of unsold homes, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, the prospect of rising foreclosures and billions in legacy losses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who has said there is a strong case to be made for continued US involvement, has promised to deliver the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the housing-finance system by the end of January. Republican lawmakers, who will take control of the House of Representatives in January, have called for the government to end its support for Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of McLean, Va.

“Although federal authorities have taken no concrete public steps toward sponsoring a GSE alternative, Standard & Poor’s believes that it’s a useful exercise to consider how much such a recapitalization might cost taxpayers,” the report said.

$685 BILLION.  That’s quite a mess.

Did it just happen?  Hardly.  This was going on for years.  This was what caused the subprime crisis that destroyed our economy in 2008.

Let’s survey the record.  According to record provided by The New York Times, Fannie and Freddie were in huge trouble PRIOR TO the economic collapse.  And their holdings were so massive that there is simply no reasonable way that one can maintain that their crisis didn’t directly contribute to the greater crisis to be revealed.  Read the article dated July 11, 2008:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

A timeline of the subprime loan crisis of 2008 clearly reveals that it was Fannie Mae’s collapse that started the entire mess rolling downhill.  From Wikipedia:

September 2008

Main article: Global financial crisis in September 2008

• • September 7: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.’s $12 trillion mortgage market, effectively nationalizing them. This causes panic because almost every home mortgage lender and Wall Street bank relied on them to facilitate the mortgage market and investors worldwide owned $5.2 trillion of debt securities backed by them.^[151][152]
  • September 14: Merrill Lynch is sold to Bank of America amidst fears of a liquidity crisis and Lehman Brothers collapse^[153]
  • September 15: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection^[154]
  • September 16: Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s downgrade ratings on AIG‘s credit on concerns over continuing losses to mortgage-backed securities, sending the company into fears of insolvency.^[155][156] In addition, the Reserve Primary Fund “breaks the buck” leading to a run on the money market funds. Over $140 billion is withdrawn vs. $7 billion the week prior. This leads to problems for the commercial paper market, a key source of funding for corporations, which suddenly could not get funds or had to pay much higher interest rates.^[157]
  • September 17: The US Federal Reserve lends $85 billion to American International Group (AIG) to avoid bankruptcy.
  • September 18: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke meet with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout through the purchase of toxic assets. Bernanke tells them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”^[158]
  • September 19: Paulson financial rescue plan is unveiled after a volatile week in stock and debt markets.

Democrats who bother to offer any reason at all why “Republicans got us into this mess” claim that the Republicans refused to regulate and reform the economic sector.

Well, let’s dig a little further.  Was it George Bush who refused to regulate or reform?

Hardly.

From US News & World Report:

Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That’s right.  George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agencies at the epicenter of the economic crisis.

When did this thing start?  Under Bush?  Not according to The New York Times, as I have pointed out before in a previous article.

From the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

More.  Again from the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

What do we have, even in the pages of the New York Times?  A prediction that as soon as the economy cooled off, the mortgage market would explode like a depth charge and the government would have to step in to prevent a catastrophe.  And from a Clinton program, at that.

The same man – Peter Wallison – who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

So this disaster began under Bill Clinton.  Specifically, it began in the very final years of the Clinton administration.  Interestingly, at the same time that the Dot-com bubble was getting ready to explode on Clinton’s watch.  Clinton got all the credit for a great economy, and Bush got to watch 78% of the value of Nasdaq destroyed just as he was taking office.  $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized (43% of the the Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003).  Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive economic disaster (made even worse by the shocking 9/11 attacks), and Bush turned economic calamity into the longest consecutive period of job growth (52 straight months) in history.  In diametrical contradiction to all the lies that you have  heard from Democrats and from a mainstream media propaganda machine that often puts Joseph Goebbels to shame

What did George W. Bush do to deal with the necessary regulation and reform of these government-subsidized behemoths Fannie and Freddie?

Read what the New York Times said back in September 11, 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

So Bush WANTED to regulate and reform the industry that would destroy the economy five years later, again, in contradiction to a blatantly dishonest and ideologically liberal and biased media.  Bush didn’t “refuse to regulate.”  Bush TRIED to provide the necessary regulatory steps that could have averted disaster.

And who blocked those regulations and reforms that Bush tried to provide?  None other than Barney Frank and his Democrat buddies:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats blocked reform and regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  They threatened to filibuster any attempt at regulation and reform.  Meanwhile John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs.  He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.

Because of Democrats.  Who were virtually entirely to blame for the disaster that ensued as a result of their blocking of reform and regulation.

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

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

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

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

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

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

Here’s the process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.