Posts Tagged ‘blame Obama’

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.”

 

 

Advertisements

Gas Prices To Rise Throughout Rest Of 2012 (And What Was It Obama Said About High Gas Prices When Bush Was President???)

August 14, 2012

Obama on gas prices back when Bush was president:

I bought my gas in California Sunday afternoon and paid $4.26 a gallon for the privilege.  And guess what: it isn’t going to be getting better, we’re being told:

Gas Prices Set to Rise for Rest of 2012?
By Sharon Epperson | CNBC – Tue, Aug 7, 2012 5:21 PM EDT.

Gasoline and oil futures surged Tuesday to the highest prices since May, as traders predicted the damage from a fire at California’s third largest refinery could take months to repair.

The lowest retail gasoline prices of the year may already be behind us, some traders say, especially in light of this incident as well as refinery issues around the U.S. and across the Atlantic in the North Sea.

September RBOB gasoline futures briefly topped $3 a gallon Tuesday, and settled just shy of that mark, near a 3-month high. The more than 2 percent gain in gasoline futures sparked big gains in the oil market, where London-based Brent crude prices jumped over $2 to more than $112 a barrel and WTI oil futures topped $94 a barrel in New York, then settled up more than $1 at $93.67 a barrel.

The fire at the 240,000 barrel per day Chevron refinery in the San Francisco Bay area started around 6:15 pm local time Monday and blazed through the night before being extinguished early Tuesday. Chevron’s Richmond refinery produces about 15 percent of the gasoline used by California drivers, says energy analyst Andy Lipow.

Operations at the refinery are expected to be hampered for some time. Analysts say it could take months before the crude distillation unit where the fire broke out is back to normal operations.

The local gasoline market in California saw a swift, steep price surge-far greater than at the New York Mercantile Exchange. Spot gasoline prices soared in San Francisco, spiking over 35 cents to $3.32 a gallon, skyrocketing 12 percent. Prices could climb at least 40 cents in the wake of this incident, says OPIS analyst Tom Kloza.

California spot prices help determine retail prices, which were at $3.86 a gallon for the state-wide average on Tuesday and already higher than this time last year, according to AAA. Due in part to the specific blend, California gasoline prices are always among the most expensive in the country, currently 23 cents above the national average of $3.63 a gallon. (Track commodities here)

Rising Brent crude oil prices, due to tight production in light of maintenance of North Sea refineries, as well as other refinery issues in the Midwest and East Coast, are also helping to support gasoline prices, traders say. On average, retail gasoline prices are up 13 cents, since hitting $3.50 a gallon for the national average a week ago, according to AAA.

“People probably paid the lowest price for gasoline for the year a few weeks ago,” says trader Anthony Grisanti of GRZ Energy. “When you add up all of the impact (from refinery issues), prices will keep going up.”

Strengthening global oil prices have also aided the rally in the gasoline market. Tropical Storm Ernesto could disrupt oil production and distribution in Mexico this week and a pipeline explosion in Iraq disrupted oil and gasoline supplies to Turkey early Monday. Supply concerns due to tensions with Iran and violence in Syria have also contributed to steady gains in the oil markets for the past month.

In Obama’s God Damn America, oil companies are being fined for not using a biofuel that literally does not exist:

WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

Don’t feel too bad for the oil companies, though.  Because they are passing those idiotic penalties on to YOU in the form of higher prices.  It’s just part of what you get for voting for the most depraved president in American history.  Think of it as paying a fine for presidential leadership and common sense that doesn’t exist.

In Obama’s God Damn America, oil companies are required to add ethanol to gasoline no matter how idiotic it is to literally burn food while starving people die or how expensive it makes our fuel:

U.S. drivers saw prices at the pump rise 5.1% in July, the largest increase for the month in more than a dozen years. On top of oil speculators and geopolitical tensions, ethanol also played a role this time.

According to AAA, national average gasoline prices rose 17 cents a gallon over the course of July, to $3.50. About four to five cents of the increase were due to higher ethanol prices, making it “a serious contributing factor,” says Avery Ash, AAA’s spokesperson.

Almost all the gasoline that’s used in the U.S. has a 10% blend of ethanol in it, and most ethanol is produced from corn. As corn raced to a record high amid hot, dry weather, ethanol prices soared, up 17% in July.

Just like the change in crude oil prices, when the underlying price of ethanol changes, it goes all the way through to the price at the pump. For every 10 cents the price of ethanol changes, the price of gasoline is going to change by one cent.

In Obama’s God Damn America, we get the worst drought in fifty freaking years and the highest food prices in history:

The US corn crop is in a state of disaster, with more than half of all US acreage listed in poor or very poor condition due to a record-breaking drought.

And:

The drought that’s drying up the Heartland isn’t just an American problem. It’s causing food prices to surge worldwide.

And it could get worse.

This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call, it’s the same global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008,” said Colin Roche of Oxfam, noting that the drought could lead to food shortages for millions of people worldwide.

Food is a major U.S. export, so the drought affects prices around the globe.

“World leaders must snap out of their lazy complacency and realize the time of cheap food has long gone,” Roche said.

It’s kind of interesting how things began to literally go to hell the year that America elected Obama, isn’t it?

You read your Bible and see what happens when a people embrace wickedness the way we did in embracing the most wicked president in our history.

However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.  Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.  The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. — Deuteronomy 28:15-18

Or as I put it back on November 4, 2008:

Obama Wins!  God Damn America!

As gas prices and food prices and all kinds of other prices keep climbing out of control under this failed fool’s leadership, you just remember Obama pointing his hypocrite demagogue finger at Bush when gas prices went up.

But Bush is gone and according to Obama himself we all should be pointing our fingers at Obama now.

CBS/New York Times Poll: Americans (FINALLY!) Hold Obama Responsible For The Ruined Economy He’s Spent The Last Four Years Destroying

July 21, 2012

I like the way this is going.  About damn time, too:

Poll: Voters blame Obama for the economy
By BYRON TAU |
7/18/12 6:50 PM EDT

Voters by and large believe that President Obama’s economic policies have contributed to the persistent malaise in the economy, according to a new poll.

The CBS/New York Times survey finds that 64 percent of voters believe that Obama’s policies have contributed significantly or somewhat to the persistent weakness in the economy. Still, 81 percent of voters believe the same about the policies of former President George W. Bush.

Obama leads Mitt Romney in measures of middle class security — with 52 percent of respondents saying that Obama will do more to help the middle class. The survey also finds that 52 percent of voters believe that Romney’s policies favor the rich.

Obama’s relentless assault on Mitt Romney’s business record are also showing no real signs of significantly shaping the race. Sixty percent of voters say that Bain makes no difference, while 23 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him. Seventy-three percent of voters say that Romney’s wealth makes no difference.

Romney gets better marks on handling the economy, with 49 percent of voters saying he would do a better job than Obama. Romney also has an advantage among voters on the budget deficit, taxes, and illegal immigration. Voters trust Obama more on foreign policy and social issues. Obama has only a one point advantage over Romney on handling of terrorism issues, 44 to 43 percent.

Overall, Romney and Obama are essentially tied — with Romney edging Obama 47 to 46 nationally. That’s in line with other national surveys showing an extremely close race.

The poll surveyed 1,089 adults.

Obama Campaign Guru David Axelrod was asked for his reaction to the fact that the American people were finally beginning to realize that Obama ought to be held responsible for his mess.  A picture is worth a thousand words:

This pretty much means that massive election fraud that Democrats generally depend upon probably won’t be enough and Obama will have to create a crisis and declare martial law so he can suspend the elections and finally put an end to the illusion that America is a constitutional republic.

Note to universe: George Bush has not been president for four years now.  Perhaps it’s about time for somebody else to take responsibility for the economy.  But Obama will sure never step up to that job.

“Favor the rich” means to give the only people who have the resources to hire you to give you a job.  Unless you’re handing out resumes to all the poor people you know, anyway.

Just remember, if Obama is president for life and lives to be 100, he’ll spend the next fifty years blaming George Bush much the way the Soviet Union ultimately blamed seventy years of bad weather for their inability to grow enough food to feed their people.

If you like living in a failing nation and having a leader who blames everybody but himself for his failure to lead, elect Obama.  Because more than anyone else on earth, he’s your guy.  If you want to get out of this national quicksand we’re in, the for the love of God please give someone else a chance to do what Obama has now thoroughly proven he cannot do.

Twelve Reasons Why Barack Obama Is Nearly COMPLETELY Responsible For The Downgrade

August 16, 2011

There is plenty of blaming and finger-pointing going on right now as to just who is responsible for the downgrade.  The White House and the Democrat Party have been saying two contradictory things: 1) that the downgrade is a meaningless and baseless act of a discredited Standard & Poor’s and it’s ‘flawed math’; and that 2) that it is all the Tea Party’s fault.  I know there are liberals reading this, so I shall explain what should be obvious: why blame the Tea Party for S & P’s flawed math?  Or why blame S & P for the Tea Party’s ‘terrorism’???  What you see here is a Democrat Party and a White House who have nothing left but demonization and who are playing every card whether those cards contradict one another or not.

As an example, take Senator John Kerry (who coincidentally is one of the Democrat picks to be on the debt commission), who demonized the Republican Party and its “tea party downgrade” moments before proceeding to ” lament how Republicans insist on pointing fingers and assigning blame in this national crisis.”  You’d think his head would explode from trying to contain all the contradictions, but he’s clearly long since become immune to such a malfunction of mal-logic, illustrated by his self-righteously lecturing Republicans that the rich need to pay their “fair share” in taxes while he was trying to avoid paying his fair share on his yacht and while he and his billionaire heiress wife paid less in taxes than the average American family.

For the record, “a top Moody’s analyst reiterated that the United States is running out of time to reduce its debt burden before his company, too, would downgrade the country’s debt.”  And Moody’s is basically saying, “We still might downgrade the U.S., too.”  Which is to say that MOODY’S is just about to make a math mistake, too.

And yesterday Moody’s just officially lowered its outlook for the United States.  Which means a big “oopsie” for Democrats who demonized S & P.

This downgrade was fundamentally due to out-of-control spending:

S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA
Posted: Aug 05, 2011 7:14 PM PDT Updated: Aug 05, 2011 9:54 PM PDT
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – The United States has lost its sterling credit rating from Standard & Poor’s.

The credit rating agency on Friday lowered the nation’s AAA rating for the first time since granting it in 1917. The move came less than a week after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion – a tumultuous process that contributed to convulsions in financial markets. The promised cuts were not enough to satisfy S&P.

The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was telegraphed as a possibility back in April. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody’s Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. Moody’s said it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation’s debt, but that it might still lower it.

And the Democrat Party are acting like drug addicts who are lashing out at anybody who gets between them and their next spending fix.

The Democrats are now treating Standard & Poor’s like Republicans, and of course they’ve ALREADY BEEN treating Republicans like “terrorists.”

This whole “Tea Party-terrorist” thing is beyond ridiculous.  Especially if the Democrats were to look in a mirror.  Here are twelve reasons that put the blame for this disaster precisely where the blame belongs:

1. Obama’s reckless and irresponsible spending was the primary reason for the downgradeLet me simply state as a fact that the Democrats who demonized Bush for reckless spending have been hypocrites without shame or decency in the Obama era from the very beginning.  We find that Obama’s deficit spending DWARFS Bush’s.  We find that Obama is pouring more than TWO-AND-A-HALF TIMES as much red ink on top of this country as Bush ever did.

And America has now crossed the insane threshold under Obama of having debt that actually exceeds the gross domestic product of the entire nation.

At some point any sane human being must say STOP!!!  But Obama and his Democrats simply are not sane human beings.

2.  Obama demanded the LARGEST debt ceiling increase in the history of the entire human race:

$2.4 Trillion Would Be Largest Debt-Limit Increase in U.S. History
Monday, August 01, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) – The bill to increase the federal debt limit that has been put before Congress today would increase that limit by up to $2.4 trillion, which would be the largest increase in the debt limit in U.S. history by a margin of half a trillion dollars, according to records published by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service.
 
In fact, according to records published by the Congressional Research Service, if the current bill is passed and the debt limit is increased by $2.4 trillion, the two largest debt-limit increases in U.S. history would come in back-to-back years, both during the presidency of Barack Obama.
 
Up until now, the largest increase in the debt limit was the $1.9 trillion increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Feb. 12, 2010. That law increased the debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
 
Up until now, the second largest historical increase in the debt limit was enacted on March 27, 2003, when President George W. Bush signed a law that lifted the limit by $984 billion—from $6.400 trillion to $7.384 trillion.

I’ll wait until my third point to develop the ramifications of this.  But suffice it to say, considering that the landslide Republican takeover of the House of Representatives resulted from a fundamental GOP promise to reign in Obama’s reckless spending, raise your hand if you DON”T think Obama’s demand for back-to-back historic debt ceiling increases did NOT guarantee total war.

3.  Obama categorically stated that he would not sign ANY short term debt ceiling extension:

Sperling Says Obama Would Veto Short-Term Debt Ceiling Increase
Tuesday, July 26, 2011

July 26 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama would veto a short-term, six-month increase in the debt ceiling, the director of the White House National Economic Council said.

“The president has been pretty clear that he does not find that acceptable,” Gene Sperling said in an interview on MSNBC today. Sperling said “a faction” of House Republicans is blocking “this type of compromise, this balance that could get us there” in raising the debt ceiling and avoiding default.

It is without any question a pure demagogic talking point on the part of the left that Republicans or the Tea Party were “terrorists” who held America hostage.  BARACK OBAMA HELD AMERICA HOSTAGE.  In refusing to sign ANY short-term compromise extension, Obama said he wanted to either get it all, or send this country over a cliff to it’s fiery and bloody doom.  That’s one thing.  Furthermore, by demanding the largest debt ceiling increase in history AFTER GETTING THE PREVIOUS LARGEST DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN HISTORY, combined with this demand for no short-term extension, if you want to claim you are even a reasonably intelligent human being explain to me how Obama was NOT setting up America for an INCREDIBLY NASTY FIGHT THAT WOULD DRAG ON AND ON.

If you are arguing that this fight was somehow the Republicans’ fault or the Tea Party’s fault, you are frankly either stupid or you are insane.

4.  Obama refused to produce ANY plan of his own.  A president is supposed to lead.  And Obama not only failed to lead, he REFUSED to lead.

Republicans were BEGGING Obama to submit a plan so that the country could have some frame of reference to negotiate from:

Obama has set forth no plan to deal with anything whatsoever regarding the budget/debt ceiling crisis:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Where’s the president’s plan? When is he going to lay his cards on the table?

Senator Marco Rubio understood this when he utterly destroyed Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face The Nation” program after Schieffer – in his masquerade as a “neutral reporter” cited the Obama talking point as the “objective” view:

OK, so where’s the plan? Where’s the president’s plan? I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis. I’ve seen press conferences. I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress. I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures. I haven’t seen a plan. Where is the president’s plan?

And President Obama’s failure to lead is undermining negotiations. From ABC’s “This Week”:

MS. AMANPOUR: You also heard what Jack Lew said if there was part of a big deal, it would involve entitlements –

SEN. KYL: But we have no idea what he’s talking about. That’s the problem. Republicans are not willing to make a deal based upon some vague commitment that, sometime in the future, the president might be willing to look at something that he won’t identify.

By refusing to offer any kind of plan of his own, and for being like jello and taking one position one day, and a contrary position the next, Barack Obama created this crisis.  Republicans offered several plans, and they PASSED two bills that would have averted a credit downgrade.

5.  Obama REPEATEDLY fearmongered the debt negotiations and used reckless and false rhetoric such as “default.”  There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama quite literally FORCED this downgrade by using demagogic and flat-out false rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is that Obama repeatedly raised the public spectre of a “default” even as he tried to privately assure the banks that there was no way the U.S. would ever default.  What do you call that if not quintessential demagoguery???  Meanwhile, the actual facts of the matter – that the $200 billion in monthly revenue the U.S. was receiving was easily enough to pay all of America’s sovereign debt obligations with enough to pay out on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, VA benefits and active duty military pay – proved that Barack Obama was playing an incredibly dangerous game.  Just what the hell were the ratings agencies to do about the fact that the sitting president of the United States repeatedly said that the nation might actually DEFAULT on its debt???

Obama repeatedly and in public raised the possibility that the United States might default.  And if default was ever even a possibility, our credit worthiness was in question.

Republicans tried to assure the nation, the markets and the world that the United States would NOT default.  Unfortunately, the president did everything he could to undermine that confidence.

Meanwhile, Obama was caught red-handed publicly frightening the American people with default talk while privately assuring the banks that there would be no default.

A Politico hit piece written on August 11th took a remark by an S & P official who specifically did NOT blame Republicans and then distorted it to blame Republicans:

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

 Politico is trying to make it sound like it was the Republicans who hyped the fear of a default.  That is a flat-out LIE.  It was Obama and Geithner and the Democrat Party that continually raised the fear of “default,” even as Republicans continually assured the country that the U.S. could and would continue to make timely payment of principal and interest on its debt throughout any impasse.  Just as the U.S. government did the LAST time the government was shut down.

I pointed this fearmongering tactic out on July 18.  And on July 23, I pointed out that Obama’s fearmongering with the threat of “default” could very well lead to disaster.  I wrote:

This wouldn’t have been such a terrible crisis if Obama had been honest and promised that the U.S. would and could meet its obligations. Instead he used the debt ceiling deadline (said “deadline” already having been changed three previous times) to dishonestly demagogue and fearmonger the crisis ala Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a serious crisis go to waste” advice. In short, OBAMA LARGELY MANUFACTURED THIS CRISIS. Because all the rating agencies have done is take Obama’s demagogic rhetoric seriously.

So it’s just a little damn late for liberals to now try to blame Republicans for something that Obama started doing and then did often.

6.  Obama IRRESPONSIBLY did NOTHING for nearly three years while this went from a problem to a crisis to a disaster.  Why didn’t Democrats raise the debt ceiling in December after the election when Democrats still had total power over all three political branches in Washington?  Look at what Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said here:

Why Didn’t Democrats Raise The Debt Ceiling Last December?
Doug Mataconis   ·   Thursday, July 28, 2011

As we hurdle toward uncertainly, it’s worth noting, I think, that the Democrats passed on the opportunity to deal with the debt ceiling back in December 2010 when they still had control of Congress. Why, you might ask? I’ll let Harry Reid explain:

Briefing reporters yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he’s glad the debt ceiling was left out of this tax package. And he was unusually blunt about why.

“That’s something that we talked about,” Reid said. “My personal feeling is that I’m not sure — and a lot of my caucus doesn’t agree on this — but I think it may be better to do the debt ceiling, raise it next year rather than now.”

Why?

“I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt,” he said. “They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”

Reid was responding to questions being raised as to why he wouldn’t attach the debt ceiling increase to the bill to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, a bill the GOP would be unlikely to vote against. His reason? Pure politics. Not shocking to those of us who have watched Washington for a long time, but it’s worth noting that neither side is innocent here.

Basically, Harry Reid was saying, “I want a huge fight.  I want to play a big game of chicken with America’s credit and its future.  I want a fight to the death so I can turn out my shrill rabid leftwing hate machine out.”

And the Democrats got EXACTLY what they wanted, didn’t they?

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Democrat Party engineered this crisis.  They should get to wear the result (the downgrade) like an albatross around their necks. 

7. Obama REFUSED to consider plans such as the House-passed Ryan Budget and the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  Had we passed the Ryan budget that was passed by the House of Representatives, we would not have been downgraded:

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Paul Ryan responded to Standard & Poor’s downgrading of America’s long-term debt by explaining to host Chris Wallace that Republicans in the House “passed a budget, which according to somebody from S&P yesterday, would have prevented this downgrade from happening in the first place.”

That budget had more than $6 trillion in cuts.  But Obama would have vetoed that bill even if the Democrats in the Senate had voted for it.

Had we passed the cut, cap and balance bill that was also passed by the House of Representatives, we would not have been downgraded:

Mr. Beers of the S&P said on FNC, ”Cut, cap and balance would have averted the downgrade since it is the only serious outlook on the debt.”

Harry Reid played a procedural game to prevent that bill from even coming up for an actual vote.  And – again – Obama said he would veto it if it came to his desk.  And when Obama made that announcement, the long-term bond market just went right down the toilet.

But it is REPUBLICANS’ faults that we were downgraded? Versus Obama, who at absolutely no time offered an actual plan of his own?

Someone pointed out that blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade is rather like blaming the Betty Ford Clinic for alcoholism.

8.  Obama’s reckless Federal Reserve policies forced this downgrade.

Japan was downgraded by S & P back in January and that fact would have lit a fire under the feet of a wise American president.  But nope.

Among other factors in Japan’s credit downgrade was its policy of quantitative easing.  We’ve already done QE twice (essentially creating $1.2 trillion dollars out of thin air) and are all but promising to do it a third time. 

Quantitative easing reduces the value of the dollar (making each dollar worth less and undermining saving) and sets up obvious future inflation and even hyperinflation if the economy actually begins to revive and more dollars begin chasing the same amount of finite goods and services.

QE was one giant step toward collapsing the U.S. dollar.

Don’t think that such reckless short-sighted fiscal policies didn’t hurt us and won’t hurt us even more in the future.

9. Obama REFUSED to sign a balanced budget amendment that would have prevented a downgrade.  Democrats offer the following as a refutation of this premise, saying that a top S & P official said that a balanced budget amendment would NOT have helped.  But what S & P’s John Chambers said was that:

“In general, we think that fiscal rules like these just diminish the flexibility of the government to respond. Also, when Congress has a long track record of trying to bind itself with various rules…But when push comes to shove, they don’t bind very much. So even if you had a Balanced Budget Amendment, you’d have some questions about it’s credibility, and it would just reduce your flexibility in a crisis.”

Here are the facts, however: 1) We most certainly COULD structure a balanced budget amendment that has a “way out” in case of true emergency with some high but not outrageous vote threshold granting an exception.  2) We most certainly COULD structure a balanced budget that was otherwise binding apart from such a declared emergency/crisis.  3.  Fourteen states – Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming – have AAA bond ratings in America.  And all fourteen of those states have particularly rigorous balanced budget requirements in addition to maintaining budgets that do not rely heavily on borrowing.  And while their balanced budget requirements are not the official reason for their high bond rating, it is because of that requirement that they do not excessively borrow.

Obama openly mocked a balanced budget.

It is morally insane to continue to blame Republicans for massive spending when Republicans want a balanced budget requirement that would prevent massive spending.  But the very same Democrats who refuse to allow a balanced budget requirement that would curtail federal spending to get off the ground continue to blame the Republicans who are doing everything they possibly can to curtail spending.

10. Obama CONTINUED to demand tax increases even after the Democrat-controlled Senate abandoned tax hikes.  Frankly, Obama has been all over the board on tax hikes, which further demonstrates why John Boehner’s frustration in trying to negotiate with a man who had all the consistency of jello that had been left out of the refrigerator was correct.  He’s wanted tax hikes until he didn’t want them only to want them again.

In August 2009, Obama said, “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

Well, here we are with an economy that is on the verge of going into a severe double-dip recession – which economists say would be even worse than the last one that we allegedly just got out of – and Obama begins harping on tax hikes and pushing a class warfare agenda as a condition for getting a debt ceiling increase.

Until he backed Harry Reid’s kind-of sort-of plan that didn’t have any tax hikes in it.  Until he changed his mind and began to call for tax hikes only hours after backing a plan that called for no tax hikes:

In his White House speech tonight, President Obama renewed his call for a debt-ceiling impasse solution which requires “the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.” In other words, he wants tax increases, even though earlier in the day, he backed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “plan” (using the term loosely, as explained here and here) which, according to two separate reports (USAT; ABC), includes no tax increases.

In other words, the President, from all appearances, changed his mind — again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced food product.

What on earth is Obama’s position?  Which was different yesterday and which will very likely be different again tomorrow and then different from that the next day?

One other thing on this point: Democrats were demanding that the Republican House increase taxes when DEMOCRATS didn’t have the political will to raise taxes in late 2010 when they had control of all three political branches.  How was demanding that Republicans do the very thing they ran on not doing when even DEMOCRATS wouldn’t do that very thing just a few months earlier doing anything other than deliberately creating a crisis?

11. Obama allowed vile and poisonous rhetoric to poison the climate.  Hey, I’ll tell you what.  I’m going to be talking about yo’ mamma.  I’m going to publicly say that yo’ mamma is a whore and a slut, and that yo’ mamma has no idea who yo’ daddy is because she was doing the nasty with like 300 guys the week you were conceived.  But, you know what, after that I hope you sit down with me for a nice quiet negotiation and display a willingness to compromise.

And do you know what kind of “willingness” you’re going to show me?  How about the willingness to punch me in the face about a thousand times?

Democrats called us “terrorists” and “bomb throwers.”  They compared us to Hezbollah and Hamas and accused us of taking America hostage.  Obama’s very own vice preseident called Republicans “terrorists.”  And then they’re somehow surprised that we didn’t cheerfully show up at the negotiating table every day with an attitude of “let’s work together”???  And the same people who just rabidly demonized us were saying, “Why won’t they work with us?” 

How about because you’re about a hundred million gazillion years from evolving into slime for starters?

The Democrat Party poisoned the negotiations.  As I’ve already documented, they could have averted this entire mess to begin with by doing their jobs last year.  THEY DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY SET UP THIS FIGHTThey wanted this poison pit.  And they put their fangs on and started spitting out venom right away.

And Barack Obama sat back and let them do it.

For the record, in terms of which party was “terrorist,” consider how the Democrats voted for the bill that increased the debt ceiling and averted the shutdown.  We find that not only was the Democrat Party as a whole more “terrorist” than the Republican Party, but in fact that the Democrat Party was even more “terrorist” than THE TEA PARTY CAUCUS all by itself.  Which is to say that every single time Democrats point a finger at Republicans and label them “terrorist,” there are in fact three terrorist fingers pointing back at Democrats.

12. The Obama administration arrogantly and irresponsibly refused to deal with reality.  There’s the way you wish real hard upon a star that the world would be, and then there’s the way the world actually is.  Which world do you want the president of the United States of America to live in?

If you picked the real world, you should agree with me that it is time to get a new administration.  Because the one we’ve got lives in some combination of Never Never Land and fantasy land.

Look at what Obama’s handpicked tax cheating Treasury Secretary had to say about the possibility of a rating downgrade before he proved to be so completely wrong:

Geithner Downgrades His Own Credibility to Junk
By Jonathan Weil- Apr 20, 2011 4:00 PM PT

Fox Business reporter Peter Barnes began his televised interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner two days ago with this question:“Is there a risk that the United States could lose its AAA credit rating? Yes or no?”

Geithner’s response: “No risk of that.”

“No risk?” Barnes asked.

“No risk,” Geithner said.

It’s enough to make you wonder: How could Geithner know this to be true? The short answer is he couldn’t.

And keep in mind that Weil was pointing out that Timothy Geithner had forfeited any credibility BEFORE the downgrade so disastrously proved him completely wrong.  It was an utterly inexcusable thing to do.

This is hardly the kind of leadership we need.  When our house is about to burn down, a confident assurance that there isn’t any fire is beyond stupid.

That’s twelve reasons why the American people should be blaming the man who ought to have a big “The buck stops here” plaque on his desk anyway.  And some of them are pretty damnable reasons, indeed.