Posts Tagged ‘2012’

For Democrats It’s 2010 Election Disaster Deja Vu All Over Again

September 16, 2011

Most of us (myself included) fixated on the NY-9 House seat held by Anthony Weiner (and Charles Schumer before him and Geraldine Ferraro before him) that had been in Democrat hands since 1923 as a portent to coming disaster for Democrats in 2012.

But many political analysts actually said the Nevada race won in a landslide by the Republican is an even more ominous portent.  Consider that John McCain won that district by just 88 votes in 2008;  three years later, it was won by a Republican by nearly 30,000 votes.  And that district is not Jewish.  And Ed Koch wasn’t influencing that race.  And the Democrat candidate in Nevada was by all accounts an excellent candidate who played the Democrat “blame Republicans” game to a “T.”

There is a growing list of reasons (and there’s also this one) that Democrats ought to be very, very afraid that 2012 is shaping up to be a “Reagan Whips Carter’s Ass” sort of year.

The writer of the following article clearly has a fondness for Democrats (the fact that he writes in the New York Times alone is a pretty good tip-off).  But he presents some analysis that leads to worry for Democrats:

September 14, 2011, 1:33 am
For Democrats, It’s 2010 All Over Again
By NATE SILVER

The outcome of any individual election to the United States House, even in a highly partisan era where Congressional elections have a relatively strong correlation with presidential voting and national trends, is going to be determined based on a combination of local and national factors. One congressional district’s outcome may diverge significantly from another’s – even if they seem similar on the surface — based on the quality of the candidates, the demographics of the region and issues highly pertinent to the district but not to the nation at large. Any one race may or may not be representative.

There are good reasons to think that local issues may have loomed especially large in New York’s 9th Congressional District, where the Republican Bob Turner won on Tuesday. President Obama had significantly underperformed his Democratic predecessors in the district in 2008, and the large split in voting between the Brooklyn and Queens portions of the district — the Brooklyn parts are more heavily Jewish — implies that Israel-related issues may have played a role.

There were other local factors as well: influential endorsements for Mr. Turner by Democratic leaders like former Mayor Ed Koch and the Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and local rabbis; the close timing of the election with the Sept. 11 anniversary; the fact that the district had been vacated by a Democrat, Anthony Weiner, in a scandal; and perhaps gay marriage in a district that is economically liberal but fairly religious, with pockets of social conservatism.

Still, even if those issues played a role, even if they swung the result, the Democrat David Weprin would likely have performed better had the national environment been stronger for his party.

And when paired with the results in Nevada’s Second Congressional District, where the Democrat Kate Marshall was blown out on Tuesday, the special election scorecard is starting to look pretty ominous for Democrats.

One crude way to forecast the results you might expect to see out of a House race is through its Partisan Voting Index, or P.V.I., a measure of how the district voted relative to others in the past two presidential elections.

The Nevada Second, for instance, has a P.V.I. of Republican plus-5, meaning that the Republican candidate would be expected to perform 5 points better there than a Republican might nationally. Since a vote for the Republican is (usually) a vote against the Democrat, you need to double that number to project the margin of victory. In this case, that would imply a Republican win by 10 points given average candidates and a neutral overall political environment.

The Republican Mark Amodei, however, leads by 22 points as of this writing, an easy victory, meaning that he overperformed the P.V.I. by 12 points.

Meanwhile, Mr. Turner’s winning margin in the New York district, 8 percentage points as of this writing, represents a 18-point G.O.P. swing from the P.V.I.-projected results.

These numbers contrast with a May special election in New York’s upstate 26th Congressional District, a Republican-leaning seat where the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won. Her 5-point victory margin represented a 17-point Democratic swing from what would be expected from the district under average circumstances.

Ms. Hochul’s victory should not be forgotten about, as it’s a sign of how volatile the results in individual elections can be, and how rapidly the political climate can shift. That election was held at a time when Mr. Obama’s standing was relatively strong in national polls, following the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

Even if you include it, however — as well as a July special election in California, where Democrats won but by an underwhelming margin — Republicans have overperformed the P.V.I. baseline by an average of 7 percentage points across the four races. That squares with what we saw in 2010, when Republicans won the popular vote for the House by an aggregate of 7 percentage points.

In other words, the four special elections, taken as a whole, suggest that Democrats may still be locked in a 2010-type political environment. Democrats might not lose many more seats in the House if that were the case, since most of their vulnerable targets have already been picked off, but it would limit their potential for any gains. And it could produce dire results for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where they have twice as many seats up for re-election.

It’s certainly possible to read too much into special elections to the House. Over the long run, they have had a statistically significant correlation to the outcome of the next general election. But the relationship is weak and frequently runs in the wrong direction, as it did in 2010.

Moreover, special elections aren’t a good barometer of the degree of anti-incumbent sentiment, since by definition they don’t feature incumbents on the ballot.

So these are just four waves in an ocean of data. Among other signs, the outcome in the recall elections in Wisconsin last month — where Democrats failed to flip the state senate, but picked off two Republican incumbents in six attempts — are a bit more favorable for Democrats. So are the results of generic ballot polls, which show a roughly tied race for the U.S. House. There are also a broad variety of indicators showing extreme dissatisfaction with the Congress, which could harm Democrats in the Senate but help them in the House.

Nevertheless, these are waves that portend trouble.

At the very minimum, they imply a reduction in the odds that after three consecutive “wave” elections, 2012 will show a tidal shift back toward Democrats.

 The Democrat combination of swinging wildly between liberal teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing and simultaneously denying that it has anything to do with Obama is very interesting to watch.  It’s rather like watching someone with a serious bi-polar disorder going from hyper-positive to delusional and back.

Meanwhile, Obama’s “hope and change” means no jobs, record mortgage foreclosures, dismal consumer confidence and spending and pretty much zero positive momentum.  And that’s the good news.

Advertisements

Mexican-‘Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

June 28, 2011

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

***
In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damnSeriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.

Liberalism At Work: Get Ready For $50 Light Bulbs (And No, I’m NOT Kidding)

May 18, 2011

Remember those nifty little  incandescent light bulbs?  They actually worked.  Democrats HATE things that actually work.  So they banned them.

Their claim was that within a few years “green technology” would work its magic and we’d have better energy-saving alternatives in no time.

Well, the ban Democrats imposed will soon go into effect.  And now you can choose between a CFL light bulb laden with incredibly poisonous mercury, or an LED bulb that a) doesn’t actually produce light (which really should kind of be the whole purpose of a light bulb, shouldn’t it?) and b) are shockingly expensive.

I think about the idiocy of making an “environmentally-friendly” “green light bulb” out of mercury – one of the most deadly environmental poisons in the world – and I have to laugh.  But as amazingly stupid as that is, it is EXACTLY what liberals do as a matter of routine.  Think of the additive MTBE  goverment forced oil companies to add to gasoline to clean the air; it had one tiny unforeseen effect of poisoning the ground water.  Who but a liberal could possibly be that stupid?  Then there’s the whole ethanol thing, where we are literally burning food as fuel even as we face food shortages and people are starving.  Again, liberals love to depict themselves as the ones who “care.”  But they don’t actually give one freaking damn about the people they falsely claim to care about.  There was the government-imposed ban on DDT due to what we now know to have been totally bogus pseudo-leftwing-“science,” which has caused more than 30 million people to die who didn’t have to.  Then of course there is the whole global warming hoax where leftwing ideologues were paid huge grant money awards to hype a nonexistent disaster.  And the leftist bureaucrats who paid them that grant money are hoping to get trillions and trillions of dollars in forced economic redistribution as their reward.  And it really doesn’t matter that Mother Earth keeps giving global warming alarmists the very, very, VERY cold shoulder.

Putting liberals in charge of the environment is as stupid as, well, putting liberals in charge of anything.

Here’s what you win for having voted for Democrats in 2006 and allowing them to take control of both the House and the Senate (in addition to the financial implosion that resulted from their policies):

100-Watt LED Bulbs Set To Enter Market
Posted on: Tuesday, 17 May 2011, 09:53 CDT

With 100 watt light bulbs soon to be extinct, manufacturers are set to release an equivalent wattage of LED bulb to replace them, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals starting in 2012. The basic design of the incandescent bulb has not changed much in the last century and wastes most of its energy as heat, especially the higher-wattage variety.

The LED bulbs will cost about $50 each and will likely go on sale next year, after the government ban takes effect.

Creating good alternatives to 100-watt bulbs has proven challenging to the lighting industry. The new bulbs have to fit into fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are an obvious replacement, but have flaws. Containing a small amount of toxic mercury vapor which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away, they are technically a health hazard and very few people dispose of them properly. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Hmmm.  Pay $50 for a light bulb or sit in the dark while you freeze thanks to Democrat’s equally stupid energy policies???

Or there’s a third option: another Republican tidal wave that will allow conservatives to overturn this brain-dead ban.

I’ve been forced to buy some of these “green” bulbs.  They were advertised to last so many tens of times longer.  That turned out to be just as big of a load of crap as just about every other Democrat promise I’ve heard.

Obama Promised Dems Trip To Disneyworld; Failed To Mention It Involved Crashing Plane Into Florida

November 4, 2010

[The above title derives from a quip made by Newt Gingrich on the Greta Van Susteren program, for what it’s worth].

Unless “hope and change” meant total Democrat annihilation (which it does for me, anyway), I would submit that something went wrong on Obama’s trip to Utopia.

There was a cartoon from months ago that pretty much summarized the election results from November 2:

And the American people – and most certainly conservatives – tried to warn them.  Repeatedly.

Remember Virginia?  When Republican Bob McDonnell won the governorship in a major setback to Obama? Remember  Massachusetts? And the shock defeat by Republican Scott Brown to win Ted Kennedy’s seat? Remember New Jersey?  Where Chris Christie defeated Obama-backed Jon Corzine with independents running away from Democrats to give Republicans the governor’s mansion in the bluest of blue states? Remember all the town halls across the nation?  Where senior citizens were red-faced furious at Democrats for passing ObamaCare? Remember the tea party events across the country? And how they just kept getting bigger and bigger even as the Democrats and the mainstream media first ridiculed them and then demonized them?

Meanwhile, now former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi assured everyone that Democrats would keep control of the House.  And assured them “for sure.” And daring Republicans to “bring it on” in the process.  And kept assuring.  And then assuring some more.

And it wasn’t just Nancy Pelosi who lived in a bubble.  Lots of prominent Democrats did.  Such as DNC chairman Tim Kaine, who was predicting Democrats would keep the House of Representatives only days ago.

And, of course, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen joined San Fran Nan the very day of the election to loudly assure the world that the Democrats would keep their dominance in the House.

And, even after the admitted shellacking, Barack Obama demonstrated loudly and clearly today that he STILL doesn’t get it.

I don’t know if Obama and Pelosi cared one way or another; but Democrats were slaughtered for the sake of Obama’s incredibly unpopular agenda.  Obama kept using the metaphor of a car and a ditch, but no matter how many “Danger, Bridge Out!” warning signs he passed, he refused to change his course as he drove his party right off a cliff.

It was not just a slaughter; it was a historic slaughter:

WASHINGTON — Republicans rolled up historic gains to seize control of the House on Tuesday, as voters disenchanted with the economy, President Obama and government dealt a strong rebuke to Democrats in every corner of the country.

The GOP ousted Democratic freshmen and influential veterans, including some considered safe just weeks ago. Republicans piled up their biggest House gains since they added 80 seats in 1938: By early Wednesday, they had netted 60 formerly Democratic seats and led in four more. The GOP victory eclipsed the 54-seat pickup by the so-called “revolution” that retook the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years and the 56-seat Republican gain in 1946.

And it’s actually even worse than that.  Because the most recent counts show that Republicans have seized 64 seats from Democrats.  With more elections still not yet called, that could well add to the number.

What we just witnessed was the biggest pick up by any party in any election since 1932.

Here’s the latest political map.  For you liberals, you are the ones who are now so marginalized you practically might as well not even exist:

I mean, literally, I have more legitimate grounds to deny the existence of liberals than I do the Tooth Fairy right about now.

And just two years ago you so incredibly arrogantly ruled the universe.  And you were lecturing Republicans on the extinction of the Grand Old Party.

You were a ship of fools, captained by even grander fools.

But it gets even worse.  Because we haven’t talked about the governor’s races yet:

Governors-Stunning loss for Democrats
Published in November 3rd, 2010

America changed overnight in a very big way. Based upon election results at this moment, sixty percent of our country will now be led by Republican Governors. That number may grow as a few states with uncertain election results are solidified.

Yesterday, there were 37 Governor’s races and Republicans won 24 of them. Democrats took only nine, Independents took one and three are too close to call at this moment (Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont).

This is an absolutely stunning loss for Democrats who, prior to the election, held 26 states to the 24 held by Republicans.

The balance of power has shifted and this will impact the 2012 elections as well as redistricting that will occur in each state as a result of the 2010 Census.

But as bad as that is, it gets even worse than that.  We’re talking about complete devastation for Democrats in the state legislatures, where Republicans picked up a never-seen-in-history 680 state legislative seats.  In doing that, they gained majorities in 14 states, and unified majorities (gaining control in both branches) in 26 states.

From the National Journal:

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting “trifecta” — both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship — in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina — probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats — Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

It wasn’t just a power shift; it was a historic power shift.  It was a massive repudiation.

Now, for all of that butt-kicking of the Democrats and the Democrat agenda, how did the mainstream media react?  Predictably.

I turned the channel from reliable, trustworthy Fox News to MSNBC and CNN.  It was comical.  From their coverage, you’d think that the entire election consisted in Harry Reid’s, Barbara Boxer’s, and Jerry Brown’s Democrat victories.

Barack Obama’s own Illinous Senate seat will now have a Republican’s butt-print all over it.  That personalizes this ass whipping; Obama couldn’t even hold on to his own seat – even after all the previous shenanigans Democrats tried to pull.  And Republicans snatched at least five other Senate seats from Democrats.  But how about that Harry Reid win?

Laugh, liberals.  Laugh hysterically.  Laugh until you fall down and pass out.

Because you’re butt-kicking is just getting started.  From Politico:

If Senate Democrats think 2010 is a tough cycle, just wait two more years.

They’ll probably hold the Senate majority Tuesday — with a couple of seats to spare, most analysts believe. But 2012 is a different story.

By then, Republicans will be poised to take control of the Senate — with pickup possibilities scattered across the map and a much narrower base of their own to defend.

It’s not simply the lopsided mathematics — with at least 21 Democratic seats on the table in 2012, including two independents who sit with the Democrats, compared with 10 Republicans. It’s where the seats are located.

Start with Democratic seats in three states where President Barack Obama lost in 2008: Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana.

Then go down a list of where Democrats are poised to lose Senate battles this year — Ohio, Florida and Missouri, for example — and Democrats will be right back at it in 2012, defending seats there again.

Throw in some bona fide tossup states — Virginia and New Mexico — and it’s pretty hard not to picture Republicans picking off the handful of seats needed to take control, if Tuesday goes as well for the GOP as experts expect.

For the official record, Republicans won all three of those Senate battles in Ohio, Florida and Missouri.

The really funny thing is that not winning the Senate during a tough economy is actually a blessing in disguise for Republicans – who never had much more than a halfway decent chance at best to capture the Senate this year.

Obama could have run against the Republican-owned Congress, the way Bill Clinton was able to do against Republicans after they took control of both branches in 1994.

Back then, Republicans balanced the budget and reduced the deficit, and Slick Willie took credit for everything good that came along.

Instead, poor one-term Barry will have Harry Reid wrapped around his neck like an albatross in two years.  As all those Republican governors use the power of their offices to make sure he’s a one-term president.  Even as they supervise the redistricting to make it tougher for Democrats to make any kind of a comeback.

The Republican House doesn’t even have to do much, really.  All they need to do is vote on popular measures: the repeal of ObamaCare; permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone; capping spending at 2008 levels; maybe ending the earmark process.  And if Democrats in the Senate don’t pass it, well, doom on the Democrats in the Senate.

I think of it as a beautiful case of poetic justice and dramatic reversal wrapped into two election cycles, a story where Dorothy gets to say to the wicked witch of the West (and that’s Nancy Pelosi, not Christine O’Donnell), “I’ll get you my ugly, and your little messiah too!

Absolutely everything that the most über-hard-core conservative commentators (such as Rush Limbaugh) have said about Barack Obama has come to pass exactly as they predicted.  The corrupt Chicago community organizer was totally unqualified and unprepared for the presidency, and he has proven to be a total disaster and disgrace to his own political party, along with America.

The worst thing that ever happened to the Democrat Party – to go along with the United States of America – was the election of Barack Obama.  And Republicans aren’t going to let Democrats forget it.  And I’m talking for years to come.

Obama Administration Admits It Will Leave Unemployment Higher Than It Found It

February 2, 2010

Get ready for three more years of blaming Bush.

It was George Bush’s fault that Obama lost more jobs than any president in any year since records began being kept in 1940, of course.  Everyone who takes their propaganda seriously knows that.

And it will ALWAYS be George Bush’s fault.  George Bush is Obama’s Emmanuel Goldstein – the scapegoat that Big Brother eternally blames for all the woes of Oceania.

From ABC:

At a subsequent briefing with reporters, Christina Romer said that the administration believes the unemployment rate will continue to hover around 10-percent throughout 2010.  She projects that 2010 will end with the unemployment rate at 9.8%, 2011 at 8.9% and 2012 at 7.9%.

Christina Romer, who heads Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, forecasts that unemployment will be at 7.9% by the end of Obama’s term in 2012.  The thing is, it was 7.6% when he took office from George Bush.

So the people who assured us that unemployment would never get over 8% if their pork-laden liberal slush fund otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed are now forecasting that they might actually get unemployment below what they said it wouldn’t ever get to by the end of Obama’s presidency.

And that, of course, is looking on the very, very bright side.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and  Goldman Sachs predict that unemployment will be considerably worse than the Obama administration figures.

The Obama administration continued to pimp its porkulus and – use utterly bogus methodology and utter bogus statistics to do so – even long after the lie became obvious.  A year after using the purely invented criteria of “created or saved jobs,” and after being caught again and again creating phony job numbers complete with phony zip codes and phony congressional districts, the Obama administration finally said that it would abandon its “controversial method of counting jobs” (to quote the AP).  But that was just another lie: they went right back to rolling in their own feces again.

The White House’s “created or saved” job numbers are so pulled-out-of-thin-air that three different Obama officials actually gave three different bogus “created jobs” numbers on the very same day.

The only thing you can trust the Obama administration to do is lie to you.

And since they always lie to favor themselves and make themselves look better, you have to wonder how bad things will actually get for Obama to make such a stunning acknowledgment (that unemployment will remain higher than it was when Obama took office throughout his entire presidency).

There’s a dirty little secret about our unemployment that Obama and the lamestream media aren’t telling us.

I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

I have never heard the kind of demagoguery and blame from any president in my lifetime that I have routinely heard from Barack Obama.  He has spread every imaginable species of bull crap to explain his failures.

Now that we find out that – by Obama’s very own numbers – his unemployment rate will continue to remain higher than it was than when he assumed the presidency from George Bush,  we can safely assume that blame, excuses, and demagoguery will be the constant pattern for the final three years of Obama’s failed presidency.

AmeriCorps Pledge Challenge: Read It Out Loud Without Sounding Like A Little Marxist

July 28, 2009

The AmeriCorps Pledge.  Try to read it out loud, WITHOUT sounding like you just joined the Young Pioneers or the Hitler Youth.

“As an AmeriCorps member, you are expected to adhere to the AmeriCorps pledge. ( If you don’t have a pledge certificate, ask your project director for one.) The pledge represents the commitment you have taken to serve not just this year, but in the years ahead.”

The AmeriCorps Pledge

I will get things done for America –
to make our people safer,
smarter, and healthier.

I will bring Americans together
to strengthen our communities.

Faced with apathy,
I will take action.

Faced with conflict,
I will seek common ground.

Faced with adversity,
I will persevere.

I will carry this commitment
with me this year and beyond.

I am an AmeriCorps member,
and I will get things done.

Ah, yes, the Solemn Promise:

I, Barry Hussein Obama,

joining the ranks of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization,

in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise:

to love and cherish my Motherland passionately,

to live as the great Lenin bade us,

as the Communist Party teaches us,

as require the laws of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union.

And let’s not forget the rules.  Rules are important, you know:

  • Young Pioneer is a young communism builder, labours for the welfare of the Motherland, prepares to become its defender.
  • Young Pioneer is an active fighter for peace, a friend to Young Pioneers and workers’ children of all countries.
  • Young Pioneer follows communists’ example, prepares to become a Komsomol member, leads Little Octobrists.
  • Young Pioneer upholds the honour of the organization, strengthens its authority by deeds and actions.
  • Young Pioneer is a reliable comrade, respects elder, looks after younger people, always acts according to conscience.
  • Young Pioneer has a right to elect and be elected to Young Pioneer self-government institutions, to discuss the functioning of the Young Pioneer organization on Young Pioneer gatherings, meetings, gatherings of Soviets of Young Pioneer detachments and Young Pioneer groups, in the press; to criticize shortcomings; to submit a proposal to any Soviet of the Young Pioneer organization, including the Central Soviet of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization; to ask for a recommendation of the Soviet of Young Pioneer group to join VLKSM.

Yes.  We need more of THAT kind of thing.  That’s why we so desperately need the Obama Youth now.  I had this brilliant idea of militarizing the Obama Youth into little fascist Brownshirts.  But – as the the following video demonstrates – someone beat me to it.  Those nice boys sure do adore their fuhrer, don’t they?

Oh, liberals love to say that Republicans are fascists.  That’s in spite of the fact that fascism is clearly a disorder of the political LEFT, and it’s in spite of the rather obvious fact Republicans never had their children bask adoringly in the beatific glory of a new Reich under George Bush or Dick Cheney.  And I somehow don’t remember “the cult of McCain” marching around, either chanting creepy slogans, either.

But no matter how many frightening parallels there might be, you know what Democrats will always say:

Not-Fascism-When-We-Do-It3

I still remember this glassy-eyed little girl singing, “We’re gonna spread happiness! We’re gonna spread freeeeedom! Obama’s gonna change it, Obama’s gonna lead ‘em…”  That one made me realize that we’re really not that far from finding ourselves in some weird sci-fi flick involving weird children taking over one city after another.  Is it those vacant doll eyes, or the words she’s singing, that are scarier?

Children used to sing songs to another leader:

Adolf Hitler is our Saviour, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we live, for Hitler we die.
Our Hitler is our Lord who rules a brave new world.

I have never heard children singing the praises of Reagan, or either Bush.  But there were freakish children crawling out of the woodwork to sing about their messiah Obama.  This bizarre devotion to a politician is as mystifying as it is terrifying to a student of history.

I remember this political re-education camp for kindergartners:

I still remember Louis Farrakhan saying:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

And I still remember Spike Lee saying:

It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.

I don’t know about you, but that’s how I date things now.  It’s the year One AB.  It helps me better understand why the Mayans predicted the cataclysmic apocalypse on December 21, 2012 (according to that old “pre-BB/AB” calender).  Unfortunately, Spike Lee’s Before Barack-After Barack calender only has four years in it before liberals completely ruin the world.  It’ll be just like the Ghostbusters said: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!  The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”

Okay, maybe it will just be no jobs, no economy, government control over all health care and all use of energy, and a bunch of weird fanatic kids running around taking over the world for Dear Leader Obama.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE) will massively increase the Americorps program to the tune of $6 billion.  The money quote:

But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”

NO! Cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers”?  PREPOSTEROUS! Never gonna happen.  Okay, maybe it will happen just a little bit…

Quite a shame that only a few opposed this in Congress, given the fact that the model this new “Obama Youth” program is based upon – Americorps – qualifies as “number one” in Heritage.org’s list of political slush funds.

A political slush fund to indoctrinate younp people into leftist ideology?  What could possibly be wrong with that?

House Passes Volunteerism Bill Critics Call Pricey, Forced Service: The legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama’s election, which backers say is crucial in tough economic times.

Denial of Service: The battle over AmeriCorps

Obama Axes AmeriCorps’ Inspector General (see my article for more on why this was so blatantly political and wrong).

AmeriCorps volunteers used for political purposes

Obama’s AmeriCrooks and Cronies Scandal

Americorps has a recruitment ad (which your dollars paid for) that is pure propaganda, associating themselves with people and events that have nothing whatsoever to do with them as they attempt to leech more and more government funding.

Now, all that sounds well and good.  But just consider that the communist Young Pioneers depicted themselves as loving and cherishing the Motherland passionately; being a builder and labouring for the welfare of the Motherland; being an active fighter for peace; being a friend to workers’ children of all countries; upholding the honor of the organization, and strengthening its authority by deeds and actions; being a reliable comrade; respecting elders, looking after younger people, and always acting according to conscience.  It all just sounds so good; can I sign up and be a communist Young Pioneer or join Americorps too?

Now, Glenn Beck came out with a theory which would sound preposterous unless you watched some of the videos above and realize a few key facts:

1) The minimum wage increase forced through by a Democrat-controlled Congress will result in over 10% of the minimum wage workforce losing their jobs.  Young people ages 18-24 will be far and away the hardest hit.  Young minimum wage workers WILL be hurt by this program.

2) Americorps is competing for the same people in the same age group.  “Volunteers” are actually paid to perform activities which are in fact political.

3) MICHELLE OBAMA on 2/18/2008 is on the record preaching, “Barack Obama will require you to work. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Glenn Beck says,

They are steering our youth into community service. Ted Kennedy and his ilk are even pushing the idea of forced service. They’re incentivizing working for the government with promises of paying off college loans. The catch, of course, is you have to federalize your loan before they’ll pay it. He wants you to be a bureaucrat slave to government.

It’s hard to believe that a President of the United States would deliberately torpedo minimum wage jobs to force young people out of the private workplace and into one of his government “volunteer” service organizations.  But it was awfully hard for me to believe a lot of things I’ve seen this president do.

Obama has talked about “fundamentally changing the country.”  He has said, “We’ll transform America.”

Obama has incredibly radical theoretical constructs:

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Even the Warren Court wasn’t radical enough for what Obama wanted to do.  He wanted to radically take the country further away from the founding fathers.

But to implement such “transformation” requires an army of leftist foot soldiers (preferably foot soldiers who are paid by federal funding, such as ACORN and AmeriCorps).  You need to have mobs to protest every “lack of government social resources”, to challenge the status quo at every turn, to push for the liberal social agenda.  You need those foot soldiers implanted in neighborhoods and cities across the country who are at the call of Team Obama – whether it’s answering the call to shake down banks, or form a housing entitlement mob, or foster voter fraud, or create statistical shenanigans with the census.  You need community organizers and the bitter mobs they organize.

Enter Obama and the organization he’s building:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Michelle Malkin has just written Culture of Corruption to explore “ObamaCorps” and how this army is being created.

There is another, even more sinister cospiracy.  Because all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

When Bill Clinton was president, I disagreed with many of his policies.  But I have no memory of being literally creeped out by any bizarre cult-like followings.  And I certainly didn’t constantly have to suffer legitimate fears that he was trying to fundamentally transform the very essence of America.