Posts Tagged ‘billion dollars’

If You Want To Know Who’s To Blame Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision, Blame OBAMA And Blame The Left. Here’s Why.

April 4, 2014

The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution.  I think both sides amply attest to that.

Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”?  It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean.  And nothing more.  That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.

If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose.  I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).

I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare.  And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.

I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”  These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution.  It is completely besides the point to them.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter.  They do what the hell they want.

And they want hell.  Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever.  And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can.  It’s their gift to Satan.

I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.”  That is simply asinine.

As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes).  Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough?  As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):

Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party.  As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler.  – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87

So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him?  According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”

And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.”  He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.”  Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too.  So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.”  Just like Führer Obama.

I’ve got to note that Ernst Rohm was as flaming of a homosexual as you can GET.  And there was NO ONE who was MORE RESPONSIBLE for the rise of Hitler than Rohm.  Rohm brought Hitler into the Nazi Party to begin with; Rohm protected Hitler as he rose to power with his powerful paramilitary group the SA Brownshirts that grew to some three million.  And rampant homosexuality was the norm within the SA.

Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood.  I guess that must make the guy “normal.”

Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG.  And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.

So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition.  Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).

Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”

Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?

For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 – so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history.  A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Hmmm.  1976.  How many decades ago was that?  Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep.  It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.

And:

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds.  Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise?  Try NOT.  He lied.  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie.  He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).

And:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

I pointed out in that 2008 article:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.

Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.”  Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?

The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O.  Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.

No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O.  There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.

Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

I link to and cite an article that documents that Obama had held more fundraisers as president than the previous FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And this one:

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

And then a little later this one:

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???

Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.

Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history.  Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008.  He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived.  You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.

Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds.  I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.

Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth.  Because they are fascist hypocrites.

Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun.  He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king.  He has perverted health care.  He has perverted immigration.  He has perverted foreign policy.  And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.

You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats.  You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.

But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”

As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.

And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.

Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it?  People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.

And so I pointed out:

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

Let me expand on that slightly.  I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes.  Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things.  So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything.  Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes.  If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund???  Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do???  This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do.  And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do  – such as worship God???

I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist.  Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this.  Do you know what that was?  It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict.  Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television.  You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land.  Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.  And then what did Obama do?  Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered.  He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.

If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate.  And impeach your fascist monster.  And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.

Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists.  And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”

 

 

‘The Other Side Will Tell You’ (The Truth): The Worst President EVER Tries To Inoculate His Followers Against Reality

June 15, 2012

As carried by Yahoo News:

In an Ohio campaign event, President Barack Obama described the kind of ads he foresees the GOP running against him during the election cycle.

“From now until then, both sides will spend tons of money on TV commercials. The other side will spend over a billion dollars on ads that tell you the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it because I think government is always the answer, or because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector and don’t understand it, or because I’m in over my head, or because I think everything and everybody is doing just fine,” Obama said at Cuyahoga Community College Metropolitan Campus in Ohio on Thursday.

Notably, Obama did not refute the hypothetical accusations.

“That’s what the scary voice in the ads will say; that’s what Mr. Romney will say; that’s what the Republicans in Congress will say. Well, you know, that may be their plan to win the election. But it’s not a plan to create jobs. It’s not a plan to grow the economy. It’s not a plan to pay down the debt. And it’s sure not a plan to revive the middle class and secure our future.”

It’s interesting.  Obama first says, “The other side will spend over a billion dollars…”  Do you know which side first brought up the real possibility that it would be able to raise over a billion dollars?

Obama’s side.

Let’s consider a few facts.  Barack Obama became the first politician – as young and as inexperienced as he is – to raise over a billion dollars in the entire history of the human race.  Obama’s favorite source of money was the very Wall Street financiers he demonized as greedy and cynical fat catsObama is the slick pathological political weasel who has now held more fundraisers than the last five presidents COMBINED. As of March 27, Obama had attended 191 fundraisers – FAR EXCEEDING ANY PRESIDENT EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY.  In 2008, Obama outspent John McCain by at least 3-1 and by as much as 5-1 after breaking his promise to accept the public campaign matching funds that every previous party nominee had accepted until Obama.

Now this pathological weasel is following the liberal script to whine about the huge sums of money that HE HIMSELF OPENED THE DOORS TO HELL IN RAISING.  There never would have BEEN a Citizens United case that the left so demonizes had Obama accepted the same matching funds that every major party candidate for president had accepted before him.  Obama is the pathological weasel who started a war over campaign money and used that war chest to annihilate the other side and then actually complained that the other side was actually fighting back.

Obama says they’re going to tell you “that tell you the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault.”  Well, that’s a shocker.  We thought Obama knew that he’d been the president for the last four years and that the president was responsible for his economy.  That’s been true in the past, but not in this case, because Obama is a pathological weasel and a malignant narcissist to boot.  So Obama has never once accepted so much as a scintilla of blame for ANY of his four years of failure.  Rather, he’s literally still blaming Bush – and if you want four more years of failure along with four more years of excuses and four more years of blaming Bush, you know who to vote for.  Rather, he’s blaming the Republican Party for “obstructionism” – as if the two years of utter Democrat obstructionism in which Democrats controlled both the House AND the Senate during the period between 2006 and 2008 when the economy went to crap, during which a Senator named Barack Obama and a Senator named Joe Biden participated in obstructing absolutely everything George Bush tried to do while personally demonizing him on a constant basis, and the first two years of the Obama administration when he had total control of the White House, the House and the Senate but got NOTHING done to help the economy, mattered.

I ask you:

Further, Obama and the Democrats – in trying to demonize Republicans for their “obstructionism” – are demanding that Republicans vote for what is essentially the son of the son of Obama’s first massive and massively failed stimulus. Remember that first massive stimulus that was officially $862 billion but which the CBO said would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION when it was all said and done? Remember that second stimulus program for $447 billion that will likewise cost far more than that? How many more stimulus programs should Obama get? How many trillions of dollars in government spending is enough?

But that’s exactly what Obama is doing: demanding more of what he has already done and which has already failed.  Obama demands that America bash its head against a reinforced brick wall until it is a brainless collectivist socialist state like Europe.  Nothing will stop him from turning America into a failed state except an election.

So yeah, Barry Hussein, we DO blame you for your four years of mess.  Consider this summary of Obama’s record:

Few things are more difficult in politics than confronting failure and learning from it. It is especially difficult when a leader you have championed, and in whom you have placed your highest hopes, turns out to be less than he seemed.

Such is the dilemma facing liberals in the age of Obama. Barack Obama entered the presidency with his sights and standards very high, and many liberals believed he could be the transformative figure they had been awaiting for generations. But by now it is clear that, by any reasonable measure (including those set out by Obama himself at the beginning of his term), his presidency has been a failure.

Consider the economy. President Obama has overseen the weakest recovery on record. He is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. The standard of living for Americans has fallen more dramatically during his presidency than during any since the government began recording it five decades ago. As of this writing, unemployment has been above 8 percent for 38 consecutive months, the longest such stretch since the Great Depression. Home values are nearly 35 percent lower than they were five years ago. A record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty.

The economist Michael Boskin has listed some of the post–World War II records set during the Obama years: among them, federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 25 percent, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP at 67 percent, and the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP at 10 percent. The United States has amassed more than $5 trillion in debt since January 2009, with the president having submitted four budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits. (Prior to Obama, no president had submitted even a single budget with deficits in excess of a trillion dollars.) In addition, government dependency, defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is the highest in American history.

Add to this the fact that the president’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is among the most unpopular major domestic policies passed in the last century; and that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, widely known as Obama’s stimulus package, is so unpopular that his aides have virtually expelled the word stimulus from their lexicon.

And yeah, add to that the fact that Obama keeps trying to same trick under different names – it’s no longer a “stimulus,” it’s an investment  The “S” word is a dirty word, so Obama has to use another dirty word to sucker the American people into doing the same fool thing all over again.  It’s no longer “shovel-ready jobs,” it’s “construction workers ready to get dirty”.  And, you see, the fact that Obama is not talking about construction workers ready to get dirty “right now” means we can’t consider his infamous confession that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

Obama most certainly cannot run claiming that the American people are better off under his presidency than they were.  We just found out that the average American household lost a whopping forty percent of their wealth.  Liberals want to blame some of that loss on Bush, but guess what: the median household income is down more after Obama’s first three years of failure (down $4,300 since assuming office)  than it was under the entire Bush presidency (down $2,000 over eight years):

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.

[…]

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.

One of the interesting things that comes from these facts is that Americans have actually lost more in household income SINCE “the recession officially ended” ($2,900) than they had during the recession ($4,300 – $2,900 = $1,400).  Obama’s “recovery” is a “wreckovery” – which is the term conservatives like Michelle Malkin coined in predicting that Obamanomics would be a colossal and wildly expensive failure.  It is literally true to state that Obama’s “recovery” has been harder on American families economically than the recession that he keeps claiming he inherited was for those families.

There are more Americans living in poverty under Obama than any time during the 52 years the government has been publishing figures for that statistic.  There are more grown-ups living with their parents than any time during the last sixty years.

Pardon us for telling the world about what a profound failure you are, Barry Hussein.  Sorry it bothers you.  Truly sorry you are a pathetic and inadequate man in a job that is clearly way over your abilities to perform.

Obama says the Republicans are going to say “that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it.”

Obama himself once talked about “If I can’t fix the economy”:

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama
by editor on June 16, 2011

Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the butt? Back in February 2009 President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years.

“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Obama at the time he made that remark clearly believed that his Obamanomics held the answer, and that he could turn the economy around with his Obamanomics.  His was the administration that predicted that if his stimulus was passed – by which I mean the first $862 billion one, not the second $447 billion dollar one that he demanded follow it – unemployment would not go above 8% and that in fact unemployment would be less than 6% by now.  And he was saying if I’m wrong I’ve got no business holding this job and I should be voted out of office.

Question: DID OBAMA FIX THE ECONOMY? Please consider the above section on the economy before you provide an asinine answer, liberal.

Obama predicts we’ll going to say that “the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it because I think government is always the answer.”

As Dinesh D’Souza points out:

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government’s control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

Not only has Obama enacted spending that DWARFS anything ever before seen in the entire history of the human race, and not only is Obama literally spending $2.52 in bucks seized from taxpayers or borrowed from the Chinese for every $1 he gets in bang, not only are Obama’s budgets so insane than not even one single DEMOCRAT would vote for them for the last two years in a row, but the actual Obama spending is even worse than the official numbers:

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household’s median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government’s books.

America’s real debt is not the on-its-face massive $16 trillion; it is well over $211 trillion.  And virtually every penny of that debt is due to Democrat policies.  And what we are looking at now is a coming $600 trillion collapse.  Again, mostly created by liberals and liberal policies.

Yeah, Barry Hussein, you believe that government is God, and you are as determined as any true believer to force all Americans to bow down before you as the god of your Government and render you sacrifices and offerings otherwise known as “taxes.”  You DO believe “government is always the answer.”

And as was pointed out, in your demagogic attack that masqueraded as a “major policy speech” and yet offered nothing, NOTHING, you “did not refute the hypothetical accusations” that you literally levied against yourself. 

Rather, you state them as a rhetorical device to suggest that they now somehow can’t be used against you – no matter how true they are and no matter what a failure you are.  And when we do in fact say the facts that you predicted we’d say – and why wouldn’t we? – you want your worshipers to disconnect the logical side of their brains and instead say, “Obama was right!  Scary voice man said exactly what Obama predicted!”

Obama says that the GOP will go after him “because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector.”  That isn’t true, and if you claim it is, find me a major conservative source that argues that Obama didn’t make enough money to be deemed a fit candidate for president.  It’s a straw man demagogic argument like most all of his other arguments that doesn’t have a scintilla of truth to it.

Our argument isn’t that Obama isn’t “rich” and so he shouldn’t be president (Obama IS rich, by the way: his books made him so); our argument is that Obama has basically NEVER had a real job in the private sector and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how the private sector works.  In fact, when Obama came the closest he ever would in his career to having such a job, he was so radical and so anti-business that he wrote, “I felt like a spy behind enemy lines.”  Obama’s real love was for socialist community agitating and undermining the private sector.  Our argument is also the fact that Obama has an administration that is almost as clueless in actual world business experience as he is:

The Obama administration is truly one of the blind leading the blind.

Obama predicts his opponents will say he should not be president “because I think everything and everybody is doing just fine.”  Again, Obama demagogues his opponents by offering a straw man.  Unlike Obama, we don’t have to invent false statements to demonize our opponentWE CAN RELY ON OBAMA’S VERY OWN WORDS:

“The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government,” President Obama claimed on Friday. His solution to fix the public sector was more government spending.

Nobody is arguing that Obama says “everybody and everything is doing just fine.”  That is simply typical lying demagoguery from a lying demagogue weasel.  Obama wants to slander and demonize the truth so that when his followers hear it, they will be inoculated against it and turn their brains off.  The fact is that Obama said that the private sector is doing just fine, and that ought to be quite a surprise to the vast majority of Americans.  According to US News and World Report, about 22 million people work in the American public sector.  The OTHER 291 million Americans are in the private sector.  And let me assure you that things aren’t nearly so rosy for those 291 million Americans as Barack Obama claims they are.

I document that the labor participation rate clearly proves that Barack Obama has destroyed jobs at a terrifying rate.  For men, the labor participation rate is now 70% – the lowest it has EVER been since records started being kept in 1948.  The American work force has massively evaporated during the Obama years, with millions of jobs simply vanishing, and if the U.S. unemployment rate were calculated using the labor participation rate that Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush, the official unemployment rate would be on the order of 11.6%.  I also document that a whopping 88 million working age Americans are completely out of the labor force under Obama’s regime.

“The private sector’s doing fine” is a lie from a genuinely evil man.

Many people have admired Obama’s speaking ability.  Allow me to point something out: the gift of great public speaking can be a blessing or a curse.  In the case of Winston Churchill, it was a blessing, as his courage and clarity of speech rallied the free world to fight and to keep fighting.  In the case of Adolf Hitler, it was a curse as an demon-possessed man used the power of lies to ignite the unholy passions of a nation that had succumbed to a spirit of deception.  I’m not trying to claim that Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler; I’m merely pointing out the fact that the gift of speech can be used not to illuminate the truth, but to deceive, not to reveal reality, but to distort it, not to untangle the truth, but to tangle it up into knots.  Barack Obama does the latter on a constant basis.

When the revelations came out about Rev. Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s self-acknowledged spiritual leader and mentor for over 20 years – I realized that this man was an order of magnitude more evil than any president who had ever sat in the Oval Office, and that America would suffer terribly under him.  History documents that I have not been wrong.

So when Obama says, “They’re going to say this about me,” what he’s really saying is, “They’re going to tell you the truth about me.  Don’t believe it.  Believe my lies instead.”

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

June 1, 2012

Obama Democrats and the liberal mainstream media propaganda complex are eating their words on the Obama campaign’s boasted $1 billion fundraising campaign:

Other experts agreed that, compared to Obama’s $750 million campaign budget in 2008, $1 billion isn’t that much of a stretch.

“It’s a stunning amount of money,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “But what we’ve seen over the past couple of election cycles is that the trajectory only goes upwards.”

Obama set the bar for expensive campaigns in 2008 when he became the first major presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing. This removed the cap on how much money he could raise.

[…]

With fundraising strategies that have yet to be matched, Canary and others said, Obama could be using the $1 billion figure to psych out the competition.

“It’s a coded statement to all potential challengers that says, ‘My team knows how to fundraise,’” Canary said. “It says, ‘Don’t get into this race unless you want to take on $1 billion.’”

The reliably leftist Daily Beast simply states matter-of-factly:

The first post Citizens United presidential election is already shaping up to be one of the most lucrative in history—at least in certain quarters. President Obama is expected to raise more than $1 billion, a record that would eclipse the one he set in 2008 when he collected $750 million.

It turns out Republicans have a “code” of their own – in the form of the middle finger salute.  It turns out that a growing number of Republicans are saying, “I don’t care how much it will cost; let’s get this stinking sack of Marxist feces out of the White House while there’s still some America left that Obama hasn’t ‘fundamentally transformed.'”

Obama has been the biggest political whore in the entire history of the human race up to this point:

Obama first U.S. politician ever to raise over $1 billion in campaign funds
By ANI | ANI – Wed 23 May, 2012.

Washington, May 23 (ANI): President Barack Obama has been found to be the first U.S. politician ever to raise over a billion dollars in the course of his career.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, his lifetime total hit has been found to be 1,017,892,305 dollars in April, nine years after he began his 2004 race for Senate.

[….]

To help fund his re-election bid, Obama has turned to a series of big-names to join him at fundraising events, the latest being Bill Clinton.

Obama is the money-grubbing–cynical-political-pig-in-chief who has attended more fundraisers than the past five presidents – COMBINED:

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on ‘permanent campaign’
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 07:41 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 April 2012

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Let’s also point out that this nuclear war over fundraising was started by none other than the cynical money-grubbing whore Barack Obama (again, from the reliably leftist Daily Beast):

In 2008, Obama’s record haul was made possible by the fact that he broke a campaign pledge and opted out of the public financing system. He was the first candidate ever to take that step, and he justified it with the prospect of hostile outside spending.

Let me put that another way: as the Daily Beast acknowledges, Barack Obama broke his word, which is to say he lied to the American people.  John McCain accepted the public financing system which had always been used previously.  Barack Obama saw his chance to rake in more money and said to hell with that public financing system and its limits, and exploded it for all time.  And the worst demagogue who has ever stunk of the Oval Office used as his deceitful ruse the threat that HE HIMSELF WAS ACTUALLY PERPETRATING: to raise giant sums of money from outside the public financing system.

And understand: the Citizens United case – which Obama demonized and undermined the Supreme Court for deciding – hadn’t happened yet.  And the only reason we probably ever GOT the Citizens United decision that Obama demonized the Supreme Court over is because Barack Obama broke his word and massively corrupted the political fundraising system to form the backdrop to which Citizens United came down.

You don’t like the Citizens United decision that opened up the fundraising floodgates even wider than Obama flung them open, Democrats?  You have yourselves to blame for it and for a whole hell of a lot of other things by electing an evil malignant narcissist as your president.  Because don’t you dare think that the Supreme Court didn’t look at the billion dollar whore who had ripped up all previously mutually agreed upon fundraising rules and standards and concluded that they might as well finish what Obama started.

And then there’s the fact that according to the Democrats’ “logic,” corporations – which are groups of people organizing to build a business – shouldn’t be counted as a “person,” but UNIONS – which are groups of people organizing to tear apart those same businesses – SHOULD BE counted as a “person.”  So unions raising hundreds of millions of dollars is good but corporations backed by elected boards and shareholders raising money is BAD.

Not that Democrats hadn’t already violated the fundraising rules in all sorts of sordid ways without Obama.  You know about that silly little limit of $2,500?  We know for a fact that Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon gave upwards of a million dollars to John Edwards campaign in an under-the-table transaction through third parties:

According to two sources close to Mrs. Mellon, her suspicions weren’t even aroused by the unusual method of payment: She was advised to write bank checks for “furniture,” made out to Bryan Huffman’s Monroe, North Carolina-based interior design business. Huffman in turn endorsed them over to Young, who then got the money to Edwards.

That “gift” then met with a request by John Edwards for another $3 million.  And if that wasn’t enough chutzpah, Edwards started asking for sums in the $30-40 million range.

John Edwards is one nasty whore, I believe it is wholly accurate to say.  But he is nowhere NEAR the whore that Obama has proven to be in terms of fundraising.

So it should surprise nobody that Republicans – who have had it past their eyeballs in Obama’s incredibly divisive and incredibly partisan and incredibly evil political games – to determine to finally beat Obama at his own twisted game and raise such a mountain of money that it will bury even “the billion dollar whore” once-for-all:

GOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz
By MIKE ALLEN and JIM VANDEHEI | 5/30/12 4:34 AM EDT

Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.

That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections – twice what they had been expected to commit.

Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, proved its potency by spending nearly $50 million in the primaries. Now able to entice big donors with a neck-and-neck general election, the group is likely to meet its new goal of spending $100 million more.

And American Crossroads and the affiliated Crossroads GPS, the groups that Rove and Ed Gillespie helped conceive and raise cash for, are expected to ante up $300 million, giving the two-year-old organization one of the election’s loudest voices.

“The intensity on the right is white-hot,” said Steven Law, president of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. “We just can’t leave anything in the locker room. And there is a greater willingness to cooperate and share information among outside groups on the center-right.”

In targeted states, the groups’ activities will include TV, radio and digital advertising; voter-turnout work; mail and phone appeals; and absentee- and early-ballot drives.

The $1 billion in outside money is in addition to the traditional party apparatus – the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee – which together intend to raise at least $800 million.

The Republican financial plans are unlike anything seen before in American politics. If the GOP groups hit their targets, they likely could outspend their liberal adversaries by at least two-to-one, according to officials involved in the budgeting for outside groups on the right and left.

By contrast, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama’s reelection, has struggled to raise money, and now hopes to spend about $100 million. Obama’s initial reluctance to embrace such groups constrained fundraising on the Democratic side, which is now trying to make up for lost time.

Labor could add another $200 million to $400 million in Democratic backing.

The consequences of the conservative resurgence in fundraising are profound. If it holds, Romney and his allies will likely outraise and outspend Obama this fall, a once-unthinkable proposition. The surge has increased the urgency of the Democrats’ thus-far futile efforts to blunt the effects of a pair of 2010 federal court rulings – including the Supreme Court’s seminal Citizens United decision – that opened the floodgates for limitless spending, and prompted Obama to flip-flop on his resistance to super PACs on the left.

“We’re not making any attempt to match American Crossroads or any of those groups with television ads,” said Michael Podhorzer, political director for the AFL-CIO. Instead, much of labor’s money will be spent on talking directly with union members and other workers.

“Progressives can’t match all the money going into the system right now because of Citizens United, so we have to have a program that empowers the worker movement,” Podhorzer said.

Much of the public focus has been on how these outside groups will tilt the balance of power in fundraising at the presidential level. But POLITICO has learned that Republicans involved with the groups see the combined efforts playing out just as aggressively at the congressional level, in below-the-radar efforts designed to damage Democratic candidates for the House and Senate.

The officials said that if Romney looks weak in the final stretch, the vast majority of the money could be aimed at winning back the Senate. Republicans need four seats to do that, if Obama is re-elected.

Republicans have taken one big lesson away from campaigns conducted to date in 2011 and 2012: outside money can be the difference-maker in elections.

It was outside money from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson that single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich afloat against Romney. A super PAC spending surge fueled by Wyoming mutual fund guru Foster Friess was credited with powering Rick Santorum to an upset win in the Iowa caucuses. And outside money has helped lift tea party challengers past incumbents like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in this year’s primaries.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent twice as much on the air as the campaign did in the thick of the primaries: Through March, the campaign had put $16.7 million into TV, while ROF shelled out $33.2 million.

In Florida, the super PAC outspent the campaign, $8.8 million to $6.7 million. (The campaign can get more spots per dollar because of more favorable rates.) In Michigan, it was $2.3 million to $1.5 million. In Ohio, ROF outspent the campaign, $2.3 million to $1.5 million.

Now Republicans are applying this approach – on steroids – to the remainder of the campaign:

—Groups affiliated with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are among the biggest behind-the-scenes players in Republican politics, will spend the most of any outside outfit on either side: roughly $395 million for issue and political advocacy by groups they support – twice the amount they previously had been expected to commit.

“People are energized because the future of our country and economy is at stake,” said an ally familiar with the Koch effort.

The flagship group in the Koch network is Americans for Prosperity, which gets about half its funds from other donors.

— American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) plan to do about two-thirds of their spending on advocacy related to the presidential race, and the rest relating to House and Senate races. Crossroads (a super PAC) was founded in April 2010, Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 non-profit group) started the next month.

—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call “the first insurance policy” if Obama were to get reelected.

But the Chamber’s message, which includes attacks on Obama’s health-care plan, can be expected to help Romney in several states with competitive Senate races that are also presidential battlegrounds – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.

—The YG Action Fund, the super PAC started by aides of the two self-styled “Young Guns” – House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — has a goal of raising about $30 million, including the YG Network.

—American Action Network, chaired by former senator Norm Coleman, raised about $30 million in the 2010 election cycle and is likely to try to at least match that amount in 2012, with most of that going toward congressional races.

—The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC supported by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House GOP leaders, has reported raising $5 million so far.

—The pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, is likely to raise $50 million to $100 million for the general election. “They saw that the spending worked before, and with the race this competitive, it will be even easier for them to raise money now,” said a source close to the group.

Charlie Spies, co-founder and counsel of Restore Our Future, said: “While there are multiple other groups doing important work to assist Republicans up and down the ticket, ROF is the only group dedicated solely to electing Mitt Romney, and targeting every dollar that we raise towards supporting him. ROF will spend our resources fighting back against the Obama team’s distortions and smears.”

—FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led tea party outfit that has backed challengers in GOP congressional primaries, is expected to spend $30 million or more on issue advocacy, campaign ads and organizing — between its super PAC and 501(c)4.

—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on “the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community,” according to a source familiar with its plans.

—Club for Growth plans spending in congressional races but does not reveal totals.

It’s important to step back for a moment to understand the currents racing through the money chase right now. Republicans, back in the era of soft money, dominated fundraising, thanks in large part to big business donors. But when soft money was outlawed in 2002, a lot of business donors got uneasy about feeding their money through outside groups. Many sat out. At the same time, liberals got into the business of using tax-exempt and other groups to build their own web of think tanks, media monitors, vote-trackers and advocacy groups to influence politics. Rich liberals such as George Soros and union leaders funded much of it.

By the time 2008 rolled around, Obama and the Democrats were rolling over Republicans in the race for campaign cash raised in limited chunks, and Obama largely discouraged big-money outside efforts. Things have changed rapidly – and, in some respects, radically — since then.

First, Citizens United made it easy and less risky for rich donors to get back in the game. Second, a subsequent lower court case paved the way for the creation of super PACs, giving mega-donors arguably the most effective vehicle for funding ads in the modern campaign finance era. Third and perhaps most important, Obama scared many free-market millionaires into action with what they perceive as his outright hostility to capitalism.

So that’s the backdrop and that’s the outcome.  Just remember, it sure wasn’t Republicans who broke their word on the public financing system that had always worked before.  It wasn’t Republicans who then destroyed that public financing system and threw the political fundraising process into the sewer (probably for all time).  It wasn’t a Republican who became the first one billion dollar political whore.  It sure wasn’t a Republican who schmoozed huge sums of cash in secret through third parties from an elderly but apparently horny heiress.

Now Democrats are in a hell-hole of their own making: the fools who pissed on the public matching funds system are now forced to either match Republicans who are holy in their rage against an evil man, or to reach deeply into their pockets and somehow find a billion dollars to purchase the gold-plated turd a.k.a. Barack Obama.

And apparently it’s hard for Democrats to find their wallets given the fact that they have to hold their noses with one hand around their “messiah.”

Campaigner-in-Chief Says ‘You’re On Your Own’ To Democrats As He Jets From Fundraiser To Fundraiser

March 5, 2012

Barack Obama has been the greatest campaigner-in-chief in American history.  He has held a hundred fundraisers versus 49 at this same point for George W. Bush.  Mind you, Obama has ALWAYS been better at whoring for his cash stash than any other incumbant president.

But – just as in his personal life – don’t count on Barack Obama to be generous to others:

 W.H. to Dems: Expect no money
By: John Bresnahan
March 5, 2012 04:52 AM EST

President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own.

Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.

But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Plouffe is a senior political adviser to the president and served as campaign manager for Obama in 2008, while Messina is Obama’s campaign manager this cycle.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

The tightfistedness by the Obama campaign toward Hill Democrats reflects the harsh realities of the 2012 White House fight. Obama, who broke all fundraising records in his historic 2008 run, isn’t going to be the overwhelming financial juggernaut that he was four years ago. Obama still has a big edge in money raised and cash on hand — OFA and the DNC reported nearly $92 million in cash at the end of January after hauling in a combined $250 million last year, according to campaign records — over any Republican challenger.

But that still leaves Obama far short of the $1 billion that many pundits had predicted he would raise this cycle. Messina has railed against such claims for months, as it became a problem for Obama because some donors didn’t think he needed their support. Obama could still raise $700 million to $800 million, Democrats predict, a total that could be eclipsed by the GOP nominee, the Republican National Committee and shadowy pro-GOP super PACs.

The financial caution for the Obama team also reflects the growing power of super PACs, especially for Republicans. The groups — technically unaffiliated with any candidate yet already a huge factor in the GOP presidential contest — are prepared to dump tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, into the White House race. So far, Democrats, including Obama’s own super PAC allies, have been unable to match that flood of pro-Republican cash.

For instance, Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC and nonprofit, will spend as much as $300 million bolstering the GOP presidential nominee and Republican congressional candidates and incumbents, POLITICO and other news organizations have reported.

In comparison, Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC founded by former presidential aides, raised just $59,000 in January after taking in $3 million last year. To counter the super PAC gap, Obama has been forced to embrace such outside groups, dispatching Plouffe and other campaign officials — and potentially Cabinet secretaries — to help bolster its efforts. Priorities USA Action is also coordinating money efforts with super PACs raising money for Hill Democrats.

Those huge sums of GOP money, much of it in the form of secret gifts from wealthy donors, have tilted the presidential campaign in an unprecedented way. In the past, an incumbent president like Obama with a broad base of small-donor support would have a significant financial edge against any challenger, particularly one who went through a long and costly primary season like this year’s eventual GOP nominee will have endured.

Crossroads, though, has already announced it will spend $20 million to pummel Obama and the Democrats this summer, a time when the prospective nominee would normally be focused on refilling his own campaign coffers. And super PACs more closely tied to Romney or one of the GOP presidential hopefuls could quickly shift targets with one mega-check from a big donor.

All of which leads to Obama’s decision to worry first about his campaign war chest, with the fate of Hill Democrats further down his “to do” list.

“Our top priority and focus is to secure the electoral votes necessary to reelect the president,” Messina said in a statement to POLITICO. “There’s no doubt that Democratic campaigns face a challenging new political landscape with special interests giving unlimited amounts to super PACs. We’re committed to doing everything we can to elect a Democratic House and Senate, and we’re having a conversation about the best way to achieve that goal.”

Messina added: “The organization and turnout operation we’re building on the ground in states across the country is unparalleled, and it will help to elect Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.”

OFA officials note that White House officials, Cabinet secretaries and top Obama surrogates — including Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman — have done 15 fundraisers for House and Senate Democrats so far this cycle.

They also point out that Obama’s effort to build a mammoth get-out-the-vote operation in key battleground states like Florida will benefit all Democrats on the ticket, not just the president. OFA and the DNC are expected to spend $50 million-plus in the Sunshine State this year, although an OFA spokesman would not comment on how much the campaign has budgeted for that critical state.

And Obama’s improved approval ratings, combined with a stronger economy and suddenly hopeful Senate Democratic map, are buoying party strategists on the Hill. They know, like the White House does, that Reid has no chance of retaining his majority, nor Pelosi a chance of becoming speaker again, if Obama doesn’t win reelection.

Some Democratic insiders caution as well that the Plouffe-Messina line on Thursday may not be the last word on campaign cash.

Officials for both the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees echoed the conciliatory White House message, despite the unhappiness in Democratic ranks over the Obama stance.

“The DCCC’s goal is to win 25 seats, and President Obama’s reelection is critical to our effort. We appreciate everything that OFA is doing to help and look forward to working with them as we each reach our goals this cycle,” said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director.

“Keeping Mitch McConnell and the tea party in the minority is motivating Democrats across the country, and that is why Democratic senators and candidates will have the resources to win in November,” said Matt Canter, the DSCC’s spokesman. “We appreciate OFA’s cooperation with our efforts and look forward to even more support from the president’s campaign and the DNC.”

What’s really funny is the progression:

We go from this:

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a multibillion-dollar contest. President Obama’s re-election committee is expected to raise at least $1 billion, and Republicans have high hopes that their nominee will reach the 10-figure level as well.

That’s brand-new territory for presidential candidates. In 2008, Obama raised nearly $746 million. That was double what George W. Bush raised just four years earlier — which itself was double what Bush raised four years before that.

It’s the first time ever that presidential fundraising shot up that fast. And it puts the Obama re-election operation within reach of raising $1 billion: a volume of cash that takes the campaign out of politics-as-usual.

to our present state of the Obama union.

Interestingly, it wasn’t all that long ago that Obama was blaming his poor fundraising on his being so generous to the DNC (that we now know he won’t be giving a dime to):

President Obama’s reelection campaign will bring in a “moderate” amount of money when it reports its fundraising total to the Federal Election Commission in July, a senior campaign adviser said.

The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that campaign officials have decided to devote the bulk of their early efforts to fortifying the Democratic National Committee rather than the president’s own reelection campaign, anticipating that DNC will need to spend the money earlier. This decision, they said, accounts for the lower total.

Obama advisers anticipate that the president’s campaign will face questions about whether it is on track to meet internal fundraising targets, which have not been disclosed. Inevitably, Obama’s take will be compared with Republican Mitt Romney’s because Romney is the closest thing the GOP field has to a front-runner. On Monday alone, Romney’s Nevada call-a-thon took in more than $10 million.

Obama raised a record-shattering amount of campaign money in the 2008 cycle–nearly $750 million.

An American Thinker article does an excellent job of both introducing the increasing desperation of the Obama campaign to raise funds and simultaneously points out the sheer hypocrisy of said Obama campaign.

It just strikes me as beyond amazing that the left continues to depict Obama as some transcendent political messiah when he is in fact the worst money-grubbing whore to ever stink up the White House.

Jon Stewart Rips Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Campaign Launch A New Orifice

April 6, 2011

Obama officially lauched his campaign yesterday.  So he could be the first candidate to rake in as much campaign money as possible.

He wants to raise a billion dollars.  Because when your record is as utterly pathetic and contemptible as his is, all he can really do is use his Chicago-style ways to buy the election.

I still find it amazing that the man who ran as the “reformer” of our political system was simultaneously the biggest money-grabbing political whore in human history.  After all, mutual contradictions can get no traction climbing the mountain of hopey-changey.

Politico made this observation:

April 05, 2011
Parody gets more views than real Obama launch

The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s parody of Obama’s 2012 campaign, released Friday, now has 665,000 views on YouTube.

Obama’s real launch video, released yesterday: Just 168,000.

YouTube’s metrics tend to lag a bit, but the numbers suggest that — energy-wise — we’re in 2010, not 2008.

Jon Stewart managed to expose Barack Obama for the complete hypocritical fraud that he is (see the video here).

So I guess that means I’m not the only one whose winged Obama unicorn crapped all over the front yard and then flew away?

Californians Reject TWO Alternative Energy Props; Will Dems Pay Attention?

November 8, 2008

The People’s Republic of California – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 24 points – did something else that should send an even louder message: the “green,” “global warming,” “alternative energy” initiatives got utterly annihilated.   Proposition 7 – which would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 – went down 65% to 35%.  And Proposition 10 – which would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology – went down 60% to 40%.

Noel Sheppard wrote it up with the title, “Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?”  Answer: no way, Jose.

Sheppard asks, “Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?”  Not when the media is thoroughly corrupt, and proponents of anthropogenic global warming are demagogues.

I’ve written about the fraud that is known as “anthropogenic global warming”:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A question should be raised for all to hear that is never raised because the media is corrupt and produces little more than outright propaganda:

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

And one thing is certain: the Democrats you elected to run your lives certainly aren’t going to raise it, either.

Californians rejected both measures because they came to realize that they would have cost an already overstressed economy $15 billion dollars.  Are Californians liberal?  Big time.  Democrats are now in nearly total control of the state.  Are Californians socialist nuts?  Oh, yeah.  As one example among many, Californians in Berkeley passed two resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”  Are they suicidal loons who will go right off the cliff with their ideology?  Incredibly, as it turns out, not quite yet.

But what you don’t realize, America, is that you are going to have an alternative energy boondoggle that makes both California propositions look like a drop in the bucket forced onto your economy.  There isn’t a federal proposition system such that voters get to decide whether polar bears should be considered more important than your kids.  You already voted for it, whether you knew it or not.

You voted to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid near complete dominion over the Senate.  He lectured us:

The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And – like it or not, ready or not – you WILL stop using fossil fuels.  The fact that there is nothing to replace them with is irrelevant (did you know that 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels?  Did you know that alternative energy sources can’t even begin to replace fossil fuels?).

You voted to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi TOTAL domination in the House of Representatives.  In her frankly unhinged spiel on global warming, she ranted:

I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Democrats finally blinked on oil drilling after decades of obstruction.  They did so only after it was long past obvious that Americans overwhelmingly wanted them to harness our domestic oil supply.  But now that they have total power, and the price of oil has gone back down due to the coming recession, you can count on them to go back on whatever they said they would do.

And Barack Obama was recently discovered to have said of vital fossil fuel coal – which supplies 49% of the nation’s electricity:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And what would be the effect of that?  Obama wanted to make sure his San Francisco audience knew that he was going to implement his intentions with his eyes wide open:

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Get ready, America: you voted to have your economy destroyed by foolish ideological agendas, and you are going to get it.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we’re going to abandon it.  No matter how much it costs us; no matter how harmful it is going to be on our economy; no matter how hard it is for millions of American families.  And we’re not going to drill for domestic oil, no matter how much it would help.  The people we elected don’t want oil.  They think it’s icky.  Same with nuclear energy.  They might occasionally talk about “being willing to consider” these energy sources.  But they aren’t; and you can know that because they never have been.

That’s why I earlier called Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama “The Three Stooges Of American Energy Policy.”  But the real stooges are the Americans who voted for them.

Ultimately, the joke will be on the nation that put these radical ideologues with their radical agenda in power.