Obama DNI Shockingly Clueless About Major Global Terrorism Incident

Liberals might have excoriated George Bush as failing to recognize the terrorist threat to America prior to the 9/11 attack.  For the record, Bush had only been in office for 8 months prior to the attack.  All of the terrorists who hit us were already in the country prior to Bush taking office.  And Bush’s lackluster pursuit of terrorism merely continued Bill Clinton’s basically nonexistent pursuit of terrorism (eg., Clinton refusing to take Osama bin Laden when the Somalis offered his head on a golden platter).

Still, Bush was caught flat-footed.  And in that sense, he deserved criticism.

Now, compare Bush to Barack Obama.  Unlike George Bush, whose predecessor had done nothing to deal with terrorism, George Bush did so much the left howled in outrage over all of his steps.  Unlike George Bush, who had to build Homeland Security out of nothing, Barack Obama had a giant and successful apparatus which he proceeded to successively dismantle.  And unlike George Bush, who was criticized by the left for not being ready after only eight months in office, Barack Obama clearly isn’t ready even after two full years of office.  And, to further give just blame to Obama, Bush’s 8 months of unpreparedness occurred prior to 9/11, when America wasn’t expecting an attack; Obama’s 2 full years of unpreparedness have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11, when only a genuine moron wouldn’t understand the massive threat of terrorism.

Here’s the latest reason to not think, but KNOW, that the Obama administration is criminally clueless when it comes to terrorism (or should I say, to “man-caused disasters”):

Shocking. Top Obama Intelligence Official Clueless on London Bomb Plot
by Tammy Bruce on December 21, 2010

ABC News:”First of all, London,” Sawyer said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? … Director [of National Intelligence] Clapper?”

“London?” James Clapper said, before Brennan entered the conversation explaining the arrests.

Later in the interview, Sawyer returned to the subject.

“I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” Sawyer told Clapper.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he replied.

Another indication of how disconnected and chaotic the Obama administration really is when it comes to the security of this nation (and all else for that matter). There is no reason in any scenario for our US Director of National Intelligence to not know of major terrorist arrests in London. After all, everyone else knew–reports had been everywhere starting in the morning. Everyone else at the table knew as well, including Diane Sawyer. Why didn’t Clapper?

Watch the video here.

This reveals a degree of chaos that we could not have imagined, and moves us into the bizarre. There is no logical or reasoned way to explain this. Obama has created an environment where even those who were presumably competent have been swallowed by the self-declared Theatre of the Absurd inside the White House.

Everyone claims Obama is the Come-Back Kid because Republicans have once again, inexplicably, grabbed their ankles during this illegitimate lame duck session. The ridiculousness of Obama ‘coming back’ is made apparent when the most important aspect of the Federal government’s responsibility–national security–is arguably non-existent.

Clapper was confirmed unanimously by the Senate just this past August. He succeeded Dennis Blair. But make no mistake, while this is awful for Clapper, this speaks more about Obama than anyone else. To say this is shocking is an understatement.

DNI Clapper Looks Stumped by ABC’s Sawyer

Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, is the person charged with coordinating what the nation knows about terrorism and national security.

But Mr. Clapper appeared to know less than even the casual television viewer during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the anchor of World News Tonight.

Hours earlier, reports flooded cable news shows about arrests of 12 people in London suspected of being part of a potential terrorist plot. In the interview, Ms. Sawyer turned to Mr. Clapper and made an indirect reference to the still-developing incident.

“First of all, London,” she said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? Director Clapper?”

The look on Mr. Clapper’s face, and his temporary silence, suggested that he had no idea what she was talking about. He hesitated before saying, “London?”

After a moment or two, he was saved by John Brennan, the White House homeland security adviser, who was also part of the interview, along with Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the department of homeland security. Mr. Brennan explained that Ms. Sawyer was referring to the London arrests.

A few minutes later, Ms. Sawyer returned to Mr. Clapper. “I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” she said.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he said, shaking his head.

A spokesperson for Mr. Clapper said in a statement Tuesday night that, “the question about this specific news development was ambiguous. The DNI’s knowledge of the threat streams in Europe is profound and multi-dimensional, and any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate.”

DNI Claper’s knowledge is “profound and multi-dimensional,” just like the idiot who is responsible for putting that moron there, Barry Hussein.

If that’s not enough, let’s examine what Barry Hussein has given us:

In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of the ongoing fight to protect American national security and expressed his growing concern with the threat of homegrown terror – a danger which he said  “keeps me up at night.”

“What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant,” Holder told ABC’s Pierre Thomas, in an interview that aired Tuesday morning.

“The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born,” Holder added.

The attorney general said that of 126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism in the past 24 months, 50 had been American citizens.

“It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Holder said. “You didn’t worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And — that is of — of great concern.”

Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States’ counter-terrorism efforts, Americans “have to be prepared for potentially bad news.”

Two things:

Thing one, even Eric Holder is openly acknowledging that the primary terrorist threat facing America is brand new under Barry Hussein.

Do you remember all the demagoguery and demonization Obama aimed at George Bush about making America less safe?  And now we’re finding that our Liar-in-Chief has made America less safe than it has EVER BEEN.

By the clear statement of Obama’s own attorney general, Barry Hussein hasn’t made America more safe, but less safe.

Thanks for putting the nation at risk, Barry H.

Thing two, out of those “126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism,” every single one of them – that’s 100% – were MUSLIMS.

And yet the most reckless and immoral administration to ever contaminate the White House are enacting a policy which views 99 year-old nuns as being as much of a threat as the people who have attacked or tried to attack us over and over again.

The Democrat Party’s “fix” is to impose homosexuality on our military by fiat of politically correctness, so that thousands more Bradley Mannings can implode our national security from within.

Yet Another Liberal Points Out That Obama Is An Abject Failure

You have to appreciate the irony at the start of this article.  Democrats have mocked Sarah Palin’s “Drill, baby, drill.”  But is their increasingly loud wail to Obama – “Do something, baby, do something” – somehow supposed to be better?

Where was plan A?
By KIRSTEN POWERS
Last Updated: 9:58 AM, May 27, 2010

Do something, baby, do something: That’s the cry from Obama supporters and opponents alike as the oil keeps gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

The political firestorm kept growing yesterday, with supporter James Carville ranting that the administration has been “lackadaisical” and “naive” in its response to the disaster. He urged it to rapidly “move to Plan B.”

But that suggests there was ever a Plan A.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is so frustrated with the lack of response to his plan to stop the slick with sand barriers that yesterday he called on the White House and BP to either “stop the oil spill or get out of the way.”

“Plug the damn hole,” President Obama reportedly barked at staffers in frustration after the explosion. That’s right up there with “Heckuva job, Brownie” in terms of clueless statements uttered by presidents in the midst of nationally televised disasters.

Meanwhile, White House regret over Obama’s politically expedient embrace of the “Drill, baby, drill” trope is growing faster than the vast oil slick.

Back on March 31, Obama announced — to the horror of many of his supporters — that he was expanding offshore drilling along the coastlines of the south and mid-Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico. Worse, he painted a (too) rosy scenario of offshore drilling being eminently safe.

True, it is rare that a full-blown environmental catastrophe results from an offshore oil well. But it can happen — and a Democratic president who’s embracing drilling ought to know the risks, and be prepared for the worst. But rather than planning for a spill, Obama parroted McCain-Palin talking points about how safe offshore drilling is.

Turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration back in 1994 drafted plans for responding to a major Gulf oil spill, a response called “In-Situ Burn.”

Ron Gourget, a former federal oil-spill-response coordinator and one author of the draft, told the Times of London: “The whole reason the plan was created was so that we could pull the trigger right away.” The idea was to use barriers called “fire booms” to collect and contain the spill at sea — then burn it off. He believes this could have captured 95 percent of the oil from this spill.

But at the time of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the federal government didn’t have a single fire boom on hand. Nor is there any evidence that the government required BP to have any clear plan to deal with a massive spill. How is this OK?

The administration’s chief response so far was to send out Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to do his best impersonation of a totalitarian thug, proclaiming that the government would “have its boot on the throat of BP.”

(Fun fact: While in the Senate, Salazar backed an increase in oil and gas leases in the Gulf Coast region by promoting and voting for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.)

Since the “blame BP” strategy isn’t working, Obama will today announce tougher safety requirements and more rigorous inspections for offshore drilling operations. Sounds nice — except the problem isn’t a lack of safety requirements, it’s that the experts at the US Minerals Management Service ignored the existing requirements.

In fact, it was under Salazar’s reign that the MMS approved BP’s drilling without getting the permits required by law for drilling that might harm endangered species. The agency routinely overruled warnings regarding the safety and environmental impact of drilling proposals in the Gulf.

None of this was a secret.

It also shouldn’t be a secret that no matter how many inspections and safety requirements you have, you can’t ever completely prevent disasters like this one. If you’re going to permit offshore drilling, be prepared to respond to a spill.

If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we’ve gotten the Keystone Cops.

Ah, competence.  One day after Obama is gone, we might actually have some of that in the White House.

Obama is bringing his incompetence everywhere he goes, rather like the travelling salesman with the unfortunate body odor that exudes out of every pour brings stink with him everywhere he goes.

What was it about being a community organizer that prepared him to actually lead anything constructive?

It’s not right to say that Obama has been doing everything the federal government could do; no, he ignored the very first thing that the federal government already had as policy to do in the event of a disaster like this – and has done absolutely nothing else in its place.  Oil that could have been contained and burned off is instead murdering all of the pelicans on the coast.  And, instead of helping Louisiana do everything it could to keep that oil off its coasts and marshes, Obama’s federal government has massively screwed up on that side of the coin, too.  Governor Jindal demanded 24 temporary sand berms to act as a barrier between the coast and the oil; first the federal government said it had to dot every i and cross every t with endless environmental studies before it would authorize any such construction; then the government said it would only permit six berms, and would only actually pay for just one berm.  And now the oil is all over the place and its too damn late for much of anything but to scrub oil from the few pelicans that might survive.

Instead, what Zero did was ZERO.  Instead of actually working to resolve he problem, Obama has handled this like a campaign issue.  He handed all the responsibility over to British Petroleum while simultaneously saying he was responsible.  It has all been about words rather than action.

Bobby Jindal has called upon Obama to “either “stop the oil spill or get out of the way.” And of course Obama won’t do either.  His government is worse than useless, because it is getting in the way of actual efforts by Louisiana to DO SOMETHING.

So here’s what we’re facing now under the failed regime of our Turd-in-Chief:

“In Revelations, it says the water will turn to blood. That’s what it looks like out here — like the Gulf is bleeding,” said P.J. Hahn, director of coastal zone management for Plaquemines Parish as he kneeled down to take a picture of an oil-coated feather. “This is going to choke the life out of everything.” […]

Eugene, 54, who has worked for decades in a shipyard, said he was growing tired of the government’s response.

“He ain’t much of a leader,” he said of Obama. “The beach you can clean up. The marsh you can’t. Where’s the leadership. I want to hear what’s being done. We’re going to lose everything.” […]

Newly disclosed internal Coast Guard documents from the day after the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig indicated that U.S. officials were warning of a leak of 336,000 gallons per day of crude from the well in the event of a complete blowout.

The volume turned out to be much closer to that figure than the 42,000 gallons per day that BP first estimated. Weeks later it was revised to 210,000 gallons. Now, an estimated 500,000 to 1 million gallons of crude is believed to be leaking daily.

“He ain’t much of a leader.”  You got that right.  I was screaming that from the rooftops two years and change ago.

Do we have good information?  No, everything keeps turning out to be wrong – and always much for the worse.  Is anything getting done?  No.  Just one failed plan after another.  Having never bothered to implement the plan we’ve had since 1994 for a disaster like this.

Now we’re being told that the latest “fix” is capturing about 42,000 gallons of oil a day.  Which might sound impressive until you realize that it’s leaking a MILLION gallons a day.

And we’re looking at the very real possibility that we’re going to continue to see a massive disaster get more massive every single day until Christmas.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is rather like the Obama administration itself: there’s just no end to this disaster, and all we have instead of solutions is a constant stream of misinformation and excuses.

Obama Administration Continues To Set Records In Incompetence

This is rather surprising – and that’s coming from a guy who is convinced that the Obama administration is a ship full of fools moronically leading us into every iceberg in their path.

Behind Schedule

Nearly 200 top positions in the administration remain vacant a full year after President Obama was elected. USA Today reports the backlog puts President Obama behind his predecessors in terms of the amount of time taken to fill key jobs.

The Senate has confirmed 366 Obama nominees, compared with 421 at this point for President George W. Bush and 379 for President Clinton. New York University professor Paul Light, a federal bureaucracy expert, says: “Obama is well on pace right now to set a new record in terms of lateness.”

There is no one permanently in charge of Medicare or Medicaid at a time when the president is pushing health care reform in Congress. Mark McClellan, a former administrator for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says the timing isn’t good, “without a permanent administrator in place.”

Obama has czars coming out of his ears.  He’s got more democracy-ignoring czars than 19th century Russia.  But apparently no time to appoint the people whom he actually SHOULD have appointed.  Go figure.

Given the fact that he has larger margins of control in the Senate than anybody since Jimmy Carter hamstrung the country in 1976, it is appalling that he has been so unable to send quality nominees to a body that would quickly rubber stamp them.

I mean, they even confirmed John Holdren, the guy who wants to put sterilants in your drinking water and forcibly abort your children under the population-control laws he wants to impose.  And I kid you not.

The biggest joke of all is in the last paragraph.  I mean, think about it: Barack Hussein is so eager to totally transform the health care system into the next apparatus of the Marxist state he’s dreaming about that he hasn’t bothered to actually put anyone in charge over the government health care that we already HAVE.

This should be a further tip-off that Obama is disinterested in running the country.  He’d much rather radically change it altogether.

Pretty appalling stuff from a pretty pathetic leader.

Obama Surrounds Himself With Acolytes Of A Proven Economic Failure

The Obama administration is shaping up to pretty much be a Clinton administration reunion.  Hotair’s story is “Obama administration: Clinton sequel?”  The Politico story is “The Clinton band is back together.”  “Change” means “Just like the Clinton years,” and “new politics” means “Pretty much exactly like the old Clinton machine politics.”  You kind of have to wonder: if people had wanted a “Clinton administration, version II,” why wouldn’t they just have elected Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama?

Just in case you’re thinking, “Because a ‘Clinton administration version II’ would have all the bugs worked out,” think again.  There are still plenty of bugs.  And one of those bugs is named Robert Rubin.

According to the International Herald Tribune:

WASHINGTON: It is testament to the star power of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin among many Democrats that as Barack Obama fills out his economic team, a virtual Rubin constellation is taking shape.

The president-elect used the announcement Monday that he was appointing two Rubin protégés, Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary and Lawrence Summers as senior White House economic adviser, to underscore his determination to step aggressively into a economic leadership vacuum in Washington while also maintaining continuity with the Bush administration before the transition of power Jan. 20.

Obama is expected to soon announce the appointment of another Rubin protégé, Peter Orszag, as White House budget director. And even the headhunters for Obama have Rubin ties: Michael Froman, who was Rubin’s chief of staff in the Treasury Department and followed him to Citigroup, and James Rubin, Robert Rubin’s son.

Geithner, Summers and Orszag have all been followers of the economic formula that came to be called Rubinomics: balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation.

But there’s only one problem with this “constellation of Rubin”; the biggest star has plunged to earth in a flaming trail of cosmic disaster.

Or maybe you want to have as your next President’s senior economic adviser the guy who ran one-time powerhouse Citigroup right into the ground.

As the New York Post puts it:

There’s no shortage of blame, but if a vote were taken for mayor of the Citi of Fools, Robert Rubin, the most prominent member of the bank’s board of directors, would almost certainly win hands down.

Rubin, a former treasury secretary, played a key role by leading Citi into a risky strategy of gambling on the weirdest and most exotic investments – like securities backed by subprime mortgages that probably would never be paid.

As long as the money and bonuses kept rolling in, who cared if no one really knew what all these strange securities were worth?

Certainly not Rubin, who was paid an astonishing $62.2 million between 2004 and 2007 – or his fellow bozos on the board.

“Citigroup’s board of directors increasingly resembles a first-class sleeping car on a train wreck that just keeps happening,” said J. Richard Findlay, head of the Centre for Corporate & Public Governance.

“Almost whatever it does, it is too slow and too late.

“It can take months for Citigroup’s directors to clue into what others in the real world have known for some time.”

Noting that Citi’s stock has lost more than $133 billion this year alone, Findlay said, “Citigroup’s board has demonstrated that it has not been on top of any major issue in more than a decade, much less ahead of it.”

Charles Elson, director of the Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told The Post that Citi’s board consistently misled the public.

“Even up until last week, we were told Citi was a strong institution, but it’s clear now that things are a lot worse than we knew,” he said.

“Where was the board during this? It’s very troubling.”

Thanks to the negligence of board members – who smiled for the cameras as they assured anyone who’d listen that everything was A-OK – taxpayers are now on the hook for $351 billion.

In other words, even as Obama bets the country’s future on “Rubionomics,” the rest of the financial world is starting to recalculate.

Hey, Barack, I hear that GM CEO Rick Wagoner may be on the market pretty soon; why not appoint him to advise you on how you should move forward with the auto industry?  He’s right on board with you: he wants you to socialize the economy, too.

Folk over at the Wall Street Journal are wondering, “Why are Robert Rubin and other directors still employed?”

I mean, even the Huffington Post is starting to ask the question: “Is Robert Rubin “Competent” Enough To Guide Team Obama?”  As the story unfolds, and builds the case that Rubin was directly involved in devising the strategy that led to Citigroup’s ruin, the answer becomes pretty clear.

And it is beginning to increasingly occur to investors that the “star economic team” of Rubin acolytes Barack Obama is assembling is pretty much the same bunch of guys who have been part of the crowd that basically turned our economy into the Titanic.

I suppose Barack Obama’s advice to Rubin will be something like, “Just think the exact opposite of absolutely everything you thought as the CEO of Citigroup, and we’ll do great.”

A Hope For Some Rare Awareness About The Economy

I was in a Wal Mart store a little while back, and got into an argument with an older employee with whom I have periodically chatted.

In that discussion, I discovered that the man was a Democrat, and a pretty liberal one to boot.

And I learned that he had a terribly flawed memory about the Clinton years.

His primary contention was that he had never seen the regional economy so bad. He told me, “When Clinton was president, I had no trouble finding work. But now this Wal Mart job is the best I can get.”

Well, to put it into six words: he’s wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

The Press Enterprise, Riverside County’s (and the Inland Empire’s) largest paper, had a front-page article on July 19 titled “Inland unemployment rate hits 8 percent, highest in 9 years.”

I didn’t have to pull out my calculator to realize that “nine years ago we were in the height of the Clinton presidency.

So why on earth was my liberal Democrat friend at Wal Mart so completely wrong?

Partially because that’s precisely what the media told him to think (you ever hear that sarcastic expression, ‘If I want your opinion I’ll give it to you’?).

John R. Lott did a study that demonstrated that the media viewed the economy through rose-colored glasses during the Clinton years even when the economy was in fact entering a recession. By contrast, we have been hearing the word “recession” for the better part of a year now under a Republican president even when the economy was actually growing and even though the economy is STILL not in recession according to the standard definition of the term. When Bill Clinton was president, the media largely saw even negative news through rose-colored glasses. By contrast, throughout the Bush presidency, the media has been hypercritical – as well as hypocritical – of virtually every economic development.

It is simply a demonstrable fact that the media have for years given Democratic administrations’ economic performance every benefit of the doubt, and given Republican administrations’ economic performance an unrelentingly critical review. Republicans aren’t angry that the media is portraying the economy as being in a recession; they are angry because the media subjectively and unfairly refuse to evaluate Democrat-managed economies by the same standards.

And when it comes to the economy, perception often becomes reality, because people who think that the economy is tanking will invariably begin to act in ways that subsequently cause the economy to tank. As one example, if people are continually told that the economy will worsen and the housing market will continue to decline, will they buy homes now, or will they hold off and wait for the market to further decline and lower prices further? But by waiting, they are actually contributing to the market’s actual decline.

So the same media that helps to create positive perceptions of the economy during Democratic administrations helps to undermine the economy during Republican administrations. They frequently resort to downright irresponsible reporting to do so. And when Democrat and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich used the term “DEPRESSION” to describe the Bush economy, he was going beyond even the irresponsible media and pandering to the very lowest form of demagoguery.

Is our economy really doing so terrible?

Just to demonstrate how horrifyingly irresponsible Robert Reich was in his prediction of a “Bush depression” on March 14, 2008, the VERY NEXT DAY the story emerged that the United States continues to have the best and most competitive economy in the world!

I hate to be rude, but Reich revealed himself for the vile little pandering and demagoguing rodent that he is. Yet rabid little rat or not, he continues to be paraded from elite media network to network with all the fanfare of an enlightened analyst who truly understands what is going on.

My liberal friend at Wal Mart assured me that the economy was always great under Clinton, and that Clinton balanced the budget. The fact that neither statement is true doesn’t matter. Today’s liberals are fitted with psychological filters designed to prevent truth from entering their minds.

First of all, Bill Clinton most certainly did not get off to all that great of a start as president. If he had, he wouldn’t have contributed to the greatest landslide in political history with a massive 52 seat swing in the ’94 midterm elections that put the Republicans in power for the next dozen years.

Furthermore, President Clinton – all ubiquitous media misrepresentation aside – most certainly DID NOT balance the budget. What he did was fiddle with the numbers to pay off the public debt by borrowing from the intergovernmental debt (particularly from the Social Security Trust Fund). The so-called “Clinton surplus” is simply a myth: The national debt continued to grow and grow and grow, and the last Clinton budget was $133.29 billion in the red.

And when President Clinton left office, he also left President Bush with an economy that was very definitely stumbling into a recession about as bad as the one we’re stumbling into now. He also left President Bush with Osama bin Laden (when he rejected a Somali offer to literally hand him over to us) and with an al Qaeda that was growing stronger and stronger after repeatedly attacking the United States throughout the Clinton administration.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that:

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Please don’ think that the vicious 9/11 attacks – which President Clinton could have nipped in the bud by taking out its chief leader and architect – didn’t massively hurt the U.S. economy. Yet a liberal media ensured that President Bush duly received all the blame for both the recession and the attack.

The Press Enterprise article points out that a year ago, the two-county unemployment figure was a reasonable 5.9%. If anything, we have Nancy Pelosi and her “commonsense plan” to thank as much as anyone for the dramatic increase that has taken place during the oversight of a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. But you can count on the fact that the media will never connect the economic downturn to the Democrat’s control of Congress the way they routinely connect President Bush to it.

What’s caused the dramatic negative economic turnaround in the last year?

Is it the sky-high increase in oil prices? I have written again and again that it is Democrats – and Democrats virtually alone – who deserve the blame for the current situation by refusing to allow us to act in a responsible way by drilling the oil we have right under our feet and right off our shores.

See my articles (in order from the earliest to the most recent):

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

Blame Democrats for Sky-High Gas Prices

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat’s Ideological Stand Against Domestic Oil Terrible for US Economy & Security

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama: The Three Stooges of American Energy Policy

Is it the secondary market fiasco and the subsequent housing market collapse? While Republicans deservedly merit some of the blame, let us not forget that it was Democrats who demanded that poor and unqualified borrowers had to have access to home loans. And let us not forget that the principle political figures involved in the subsequent scandal have been Democrats (Former Fannie Mae Chairman and former Barack Obama key assistant Jim Johnson, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad headline the list among other prominent Democrats).

The media that would have left no stone unturned in launching exhaustive and well-covered investigations into Republicans in any kind of similar situation has conveniently allowed the Democrat’s scandal to vanish off the headlines. They continue to play the part – of Democrat apologist and enabler – that they have chosen for themselves all along.

And we saw an all-too typical example of Democrats and the media ganging up to harm the economy under a Republican administration. Sen. Charles Schumer unnecessarily notified the public of the impending federal takeover of IndyMac in California, creating the equally unnecessary lines and panic among account holders. And then there was the media flocking like vultures, breathlessly envisioning one worst-case scenario for the American economy after another.

Don’t you DARE try to claim that Democrats – who were so utterly consumed with investigating baseball players’ for allegations of steroid abuse and with repeatedly demonzing oil executives at one communist-type show trial “hearing” after another that they were entirely blindsided by the secondary market collapse – were one iota less to blame than the Republicans even at their worst.

And don’t you dare believe that Republicans under George Bush mismanaged the economy in spite of the Democrats’ best attempts to keep it rolling smoothly along. If anything, it was precisely the other way around.

My liberal friend is responsible for unquestioningly believing the liberal media spin rather than engaging in the critical thinking that would let him see the truth about the disinformation campaign going around all around him. Please don’t make the same mistake.