Obama And Libya: Liberals Show The Hypocrisy That Defines Them

Liberals are hypocrites.  Obama is a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of liberalism.

Don’t like that claim?  Tough.  It’s the truth.

Where’s all the criticism for Obama that Democrats, liberals and the unhinged leftwing media constantly threw at George Bush???

Here’s a good brief collection of ways the left demonized Bush over Iraq that are very conveniently being forgotten by the left and by the press which are the left’s useful idiots:

John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an “imperialist warmonger” in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised “hope” and “change” instead. It’s funny how that worked out, isn’t it? We still have troops in Iraq, we’ve escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we’re bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush’s footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn’t this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a “rush to war.” Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he’s still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn’t have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama’s real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was “No blood for oil!” What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there’s no compelling reason for America to invade….except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting “No blood for oil?”

4) Where are the massive protests? Can’t you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn’t that be fun? I mean personally, I’ve been waiting for years to wear a “No Blood For Oil” sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let’s do this thing!

5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddafi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn’t have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya’s culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn’t it? That we were creating terrorists?

That’s why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a “war of choice” in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it’s because Obama chose to put them in harm’s way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it’s because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?

I had a slightly different project last week in an article I titled, “Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy.”  In that, I added factoids, such as how Obama went from demonizing the war in Iraq to claiming credit for it; how Obama’s people claimed his wonderful Cairo speech was responsible for the desire for freedom, when really it was his terrible economic policies that have undermined economies throughout the world; how Obama attacked Bush for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and subsequently “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” to refusing to have any troops at all while we do nothing BUT air-raiding villages in Libya.  That sort of thing.

But it turns out there is so much hypocrisy oozing out of Obama like toxic contaminents that it is hard to contain them all in any one article.  There’s what Obama said when he claimed Bush didn’t have the right to go to war in Iraq –

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

– with what the hypocrite is doing RIGHT NOW.

Obama literally ought to be impeached by his own standard.

Then there’s the fact that Obama is an abject LIAR about what he is saying about Bush:

[T]he President declared: “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

First of all, there’s this:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a nine-month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Then there is this fact:

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya.  They even put together a list.

Then add to that insult the fact that Obama never bothered to get any kind of approval from Congress, whereas Bush had Congress’ approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq.  In Iraq, the war liberals always demonize him over, Congress granted Bush the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” in October 2002.

Not only did Obama not have any such authority, but he literally started his unlateral war in Libya while he was on vacation in Brazil!!!

Dennis Kucinich is about the only Democrat who actually has the integrity to demand Obama answer for his impeachable offense which his fellow Democrats deceitfully and falsely tried to claim that Bush had committed.

Where are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in demanding that chicken hawk war criminal Obama be impeached for abandoning the Constitution?

Iraq was – and damn, IT CONTINUES TO BE – depicted by the left as some kind of massive failure (except when it benefits them to falsely take credit for it).  But Saddam Hussein’s head is hanging on Bush’s wall.  And what about Muammar Gaddafi’s head?

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has admitted that a stalemate could allow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to remain in power despite facing intenational military action gainst his forces.He said that the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that the US did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power, The Telegraph reports.

If Gaddafi stays in Libya, it will be a massive failure.  And Gaddafi is going to stay in power.

Even the New York Times acknowledges that this will be a massive failure:

If Colonel Qaddafi manages to remain in power, that will leave the United States and the United Nations-backed mission looking like a failure, foreign policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum said. “Barack Obama told Qaddafi to go; if Qaddafi doesn’t go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world,” said Steven Clemons, senior fellow at the New American Foundation.

Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and an architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at a forum in San Francisco on Saturday that he feared the limited approach “could set us up for failure.”

“I don’t quite see what is behind the strategy in Libya,” Mr. Hadley said, speaking while a small clutch of protesters — mostly yelling chants about Iraq — were on the streets below. “We are now in a situation where we have a mismatch of what the president said we want to do as a nation, what the U.N. Security Council authorizes, and what we are actually ready to commit in resources.”

As an example of still more failure, Obama’s coalition is falling apart in front of the world while Obama continues to party in South America.

The fact of the matter is that I pointed out two weeks ago that Libyans were missing George Bush.  Why?  Because Obama is a failure, and Bush was a guy who got things done, that’s why.

I also pointed out nearly a week ago what the people who knew what they were talking about were saying DAYS before Obama finally bothered to do too little and too late to change the situation:

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

Liberals and Democrats are hypocrites.  They have been hypocrites for my entire lifetime.

But this display of sheer, galling incompetence and stupidity is new, even for them.

There’s The Media Propaganda Of Obama As Leader; Then There’s The Actual Facts

It’s 3 AM.  The White House phone is ringing with news of a developing crisis.  But Obama is sound asleep after a busy day filled with first a round of golf and then laboring over his NCAA bracket picks (which turned out to be as gutless as he is).  And, of course, if you try to call back later, Obama will be long-gone on his Brazil vacation that even Brazilians clearly don’t want him to take.

Mind you, Hillary Clinton is a liberal, and therefore quite a a fool herself.  And she clearly hasn’t made every right step herself in dealing with the building disaster in the Middle East.  But she was clearly correct in her campaign assessment that Obama would be a weak and ineffective leader; and she’s clearly correct that Obama is an utter disgrace as a president now.

OH, HILL NO
Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edgeh
By Joshua Hersh Thursday, March 17, 2011
Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after
2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed the significance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered.  Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came out against a no-fly zone almost two weeks ago, while Clinton grew closer to the Libyan opposition.

Last week, excommunicated members of Libya’s embassy to the United States set up shop in an office inside the State Department.

Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering  that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

And to some, the firing last week of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley over disparaging remarks he made about the Pentagon detention policies had the appearance of a power move by the Defense Department more than anything else.

While the stakes in Libya could not be higher, the insider said that something far more domestic was on Clinton’s mind after she leaves the State Department: “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything.”

— With Anthony DeCeglie

I can’t believe I’m saying this: but I’m with Hillary Clinton.  And it is truly despicable that Obama would actually make light of a powder-keg about to explode in the heart of the Arab world.  Only a true fool would do that.  Even as that same fool further undermines and trivializes his own Secretary of State.

Mind you, this isn’t some “rightwinger” assessment, is it?  It’s Hillary Freaking Clinton, the Obama administration’s own Secretary of State.  The Republicans and Democrats, right and left both agree that the Obama presidency is an abject disaster who seems almost allergic to making essential decisions in a timely manner:

Senate Democrats were less pointed in their comments, but expressed similar concerns about the Obama administrations handling of the crisis. At one point, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. lamented all that the international community said but didnt do about the Qaddafi regimes military assault, and wondered aloud whether the presidents national security team was ever serious about trying to shape the outcome of the Libyan conflict.

I read the statements [from administration officials] and I almost get a sense it’s like a Texas two-step, Menendez said. I’m still not sure what we are supporting. It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them. And so, you know, I am concerned as I listen to your answers, including what happens if Qaddafi prevailsI think we’re going to miss an opportunity to promote democracy with a small ‘d’ throughout the region, and to be seen on the side of those who have aspirations of that.

And it wasn’t just Hillary Clinton who warned us that Obama would be a failure.  His own Vice President also warned us that Obama simply wasn’t up to the job:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’” Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Sen. Biden: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.” (“Biden Lashes Out At Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

Democrats are between a rock and a hard place in the sense that they can’t point out overly-loudly what a disaster Obama is, because the obvious result of their abandonment of Obama would be a conservative (and probably very conservative) president in 2012 to go with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate.  Which means that while Obama goes from one “dangerous proposition” to another, they have to be bobbing-head dolls.

And Hillary – probably with Bill’s advice – is getting the hell out of Dodge before this total disaster and disgrace of a White House drags her down to hell with it.  Because this community agitator is very clearly is not up to this job, and we are one genuine crisis away from a total disaster.

Then there’s Obama’s schedule compared and contrasted to his poor underlings’.

For what it’s worth, it isn’t as though Libya is the first time Obama has failed in foreign policy.  Just off the top of my head, I can add articles I’ve written detailing Obama’s total failure in Egypt, in Iraq, in Afghanistan (not to mention all three combined), In Iran (and see here), in Russia and in North Korea.

I remember several years ago watching a fascination PBS program on presidential leadership.  The documentary’s poster-boy for pathetic presidential leadership was Jimmy Carter.  Obviously the man was intelligent, but the experts on leadership said “intelligence” does not a leader make.  Jimmy Carter was particularly faulted for not empowering his subordinates with enough power to do their jobs; he micromanaged and undermined through a tiny cadre of close advisors.  And as a result the nation drifted like a ship without a rudder.  That is clearly what is being described by Hillary Clinton now.

Obama clearly has an “inner circle” problem.  Even DEMOCRATS acknowledge it.

The PBS program did not make mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter was (and clearly still is) a fool with a totally bogus worldview.  A false worldview makes it impossible to act intelligently because, no matter how intelligent one is, one cannot possibly comprehend reality.  And I would submit that Both Carter and Obama have tragically and truly flawed views of the world.  Both of these men view the world through a set of theories that are simply totally false.  And from their poor foundations, all of their intelligence goes into the fruitless process of endlessly rationalizing and justifying their erroneous worldview.

One thing stands out in my mind as a symbol of disconnectedness: Obama flying off in the opposite direction of the planet for a routine (vacation) trip as he starts a war.  Via Sadhillnews:

Is it anything but a stupid thing to do to initiate a war and then do a photo shoot playing soccor?

If Obama doesn’t think this business is serious enough to bother to stick around, I don’t know why anybody else should.

Government Report: New Obama EPA Rules To Cost More Than 800,000 Jobs

There’s all the crap about Obama being a Kenyan and a Muslim, etc. ad nauseum.  We’re way beyond that.  I for one don’t think that Barack Obama is conspiring to fly any planes into any skyscrapers.

That said, he is nevertheless a terrorist.  He is an economic terrorist who literally destroys jobs by the hundreds of thousands – something no Muslim jihadist could ever do to us.  And my labeling of Barack Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin or even with his religion; it has everything to do with his Marxist ideology.

Exclusive: EPW report shows new EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs
posted at 8:45 am on September 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, it’s not just the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s minority contingent that fears the loss of nearly a million jobs from new EPA rules on greenhouse gases and other emissions issues.  It’s also groups like the United Steel Workers, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, and experts like King’s College Professor Ragnar Lofstedt.  Hot Air got an exclusive look at a report that the EPW minority staff will release later this morning detailing the economic damage that an activist EPA will do to the American economy, and which will come at perhaps the worst possible time, both economically and politically.

The executive summary spells out the stakes involved in the effort to rein in the EPA:

New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;

The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.

New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;

The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and

In fact, the new regulations threaten to put entire industries out of business.  The new standard for boilers, titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters” and called the Boiler MACT, creates a standard that literally no producer in the US meets at the moment.  The industry group Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) represents end-user firms that employ 750,000 in various industries, and they concur:

IECA members have 6 units that were part of the best performing units and none can comply with the standards based on the best performing units. Based on the analysis of the data EPA used to develop these standards, it appears that none of the coal-fired boilers in the source category can meet the proposed standards.

What happens when the installed boilers don’t meet the new standard?  Factories and other facilities will have to close, putting jobs in danger and firms already hammered by the recession will lose production days — which will destroy jobs.  That’s why the United Steel Workers have sounded the alarm, insisting that the EPA’s proposal will mean disaster:

“Tens of thousands of these jobs will be imperiled.  In addition, many more tens of thousands of jobs in the supply chains and in the communities where these plants are located also will be at risk.”

Nor are steelworkers the only group at risk.  New industrial standards for Portland cement threaten to stop all American production in the name of environmental protection — and send the work overseas to China, where ironically the standards are more lax and more pollution will result:

“So rather than importing 20 million tons of cement per year, the proposed [rule] will lead to cement imports of more than 48 million tons per year. In other words, by tightening the regulations on U.S. cement kilns, there will be a risk transfer of some 28 million tons of cement offshore, mostly to China.” – Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, Kings College (London)

Again, no facility in the US meets the standards proposed by the EPA.  Imposition of these standards would at least temporarily close almost 20 percent of all American cement producers and reduce long-term cement production from 8-15%.  The cement that will be needed for construction demand will have to be imported, primarily from China, which is expanding their cement production using environmental standards significantly below current American standards.  In other words, we can expect more pollution, not less — just outsourced along with the jobs in the industry.

Watch for the full report later today at the EPW Minority Caucus website.

Obama isn’t backing down.  His jihad against fossil fuels and the US jobs those fuels create and sustain must succeed.  No matter how many Americans are harmed.  But in spite of the facts, our Liar-in-Chief keeps spinning and twisting:

“We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we’re going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it’s good for our national security, and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment.”

Let’s give a listen to what Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had to say about yet ANOTHER attempt to destroy the economy and destroy American jobs:

“The president’s policies right now are doing much more harm than the [BP] spill itself to the economy of the South coast. … It’s just gotten to a point where people in Louisiana ask, ‘Do they even understand what is going on down here?’ They have the entire offshore industry virtually shut down.”

Obama imposed a job-crushing drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico, which has resulted in drilling rigs moving away from American jobs.  Even as Obama and his pal George Soros fund deep drilling operations in Mexico and Brazil.

When even labor unions and Democrat politicians start standing up and screaming that a Democrat president is destroying their jobs and their lives, it is way past time to take notice.

If we don’t vote these Democrats out and take away both the House and the Senate from them, we may not have a country by the next election.

Liberal Bill Maher First Points Out Obama A Hypocrite; Then Reveals That He Himself Is An Idiot

I don’t know.  The fact that (former Clinton spindoctor) George Stephanopoulos left ABC’s “This Week,” and now they are bringing vile turds like Bill Maher, can’t bode well for ABC’s flagship political program.

Still, it WAS nice watching Maher get owned by George Will:

Even Politifact, which is reliably to the left, had to point out that someone had scooped out whatever brains Bill Maher had begun his sorry life with and filled his hollow skull with doggy doo-doo:

In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day. In first place was the United States at 19.5 million barrels per day, followed by China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also produces a lot of oil through drilling near its coasts. In recent years, Brazil’s state-controlled energy company Petrobras announced a major new find of oil in some of the deepest waters where exploration is conducted, some 7,000 feet below in the Atlantic Ocean. The find is expected to make Brazil even more important in the oil export business. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that Brazil will become a net exporter of oil this year, even before the new fields are tapped.

Getting back to our factcheck, Maher was likely remembering Brazil’s aggressive efforts to promote ethanol, and certainly Brazil has outpaced the United States in getting flexible fuel vehicles on the road. But Maher said, “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” Actually, Brazil still consumes a great deal of oil. It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly “off oil.” So we rate Maher’s statement False.

Of course, I would submit that Politifact was in the difficult position of having to denounce Maher’s lies to protect Obama’s lies.

Now, what Maher said about Obama being a hypocrite, and making a bunch of bogus promises he didn’t even try to live up to, that part was true.

That BP platform that blew up and created the biggest ecological disaster in US history?  Obama signed off on that; it was his baby.

And why would Obama have signed off on that project?  And why would he have taken BP’s word that everything was okay until it was beyond obvious it wasn’t?  That one’s easy, too.  Because Barry Hussein was the BIGGEST recipient of campaign donations from British Petroleum, aka BP, that’s why.

That’s right.  Barry Hussein, the man who arrogantly promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet, is the guy who got bought off by BP, is the guy who signed off on the disastrous BP project, is the guy who waited WAY too long to deal with the building disaster, and is the man responsible for the biggest ecological disaster in American history.

Obama Stimulus Is Reason Why Our Unemployment So Much Higher Than Others

The Obama stimulus was one of the greatest political disasters in American history.  It’s not enough to say it did nothing; it did WORSE than nothing.  And it is going to be like an anvil weighing down our economy for years and years to come as we struggle to pay back what will ultimately be $3.27 TRILLION.

Updated April 28, 2010
Why Our Unemployment Rate Is So Much Higher Than Others
By John Lott
FOXNews.com

Compared to Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Brazil, Americans have real reasons to be dissatisfied with President Obama’s policies.

As President Obama travels today to Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, he will try to convince voters that his economic policies are creating jobs. But a year after Obama claimed that the stimulus had started creating jobs, it is not just the general public that believes that the stimulus was a waste of money, so do the experts. This week a new survey from the National Association for Business Economics found that 73 percent of business economists believe that the stimulus “has had no impact on employment.”

Many will point out that the unemployment rate has soared well above what the Obama administration predicted would occur if the stimulus were enacted. On Feb. 28, 2009, Eleven days after the stimulus bill signed into law, the White House predicted that the national unemployment rate would average 8.1 percent in 2009 and then decline to an average of 7.9 percent in 2010. Clearly things got much worse than the administration predicted. While the unemployment rate stood at 8.1 percent in February, 2009, by the end of last year it had risen to 10 percent. It still remains very high at 9.7 percent.

As President Obama and other Democrats have correctly pointed out many times, this has been a worldwide recession. Why not compare the changes in unemployment rates in other countries to the unemployment rate in the U.S. Figure 1 shows (click here) the percentage change in the U.S.’s unemployment rate since January 2009 when Obama became president compared to Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Brazil. While several of the countries experienced similar increases during the beginning of 2009, by October of last year the United States had clearly “won” the race to have the largest percentage increase in unemployment of any of these countries.

Looking at the unemployment changes in terms of just the level of unemployment produces a similar picture (click here). The U.S. and many of these other countries had fairly similar unemployment rates in January last year, but by March the U.S.’s unemployment rate had increased.

Take Canada, whose economy is closely tied to ours and who is our largest trading partner. The Canadian stimulus package was nowhere as extensive as ours. Their stimulus spending of $22.7 billion last year and $17.2 billion, this year, amounts to about 7.5 percent of their federal spending for their 2009 and 2010 budgets — about a third of the per-capita stimulus spending in the United States.

Has Canadian unemployment climbed higher than ours because of their relative inaction? Hardly. Figure 3 shows (click here) the percentage change in unemployment rates in the U.S. and Canada since January 2009 when Barack Obama became president. While the percent increase in unemployment was the same for the first couple of months, Canada’s unemployment rate had peaked by August last year and fallen since then. By contrast, the U.S. rate only really began to decline the beginning of this year.

But it is not just Canada where the unemployment rate is faring better. Other countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, 2009, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointedly refused to spend more money to “stimulate” the German economy. Yet, Figure 4 (click here) shows that Germany never really saw the unemployment experienced by other countries.

Japan clearly had an initial percentage increase in unemployment that was at least as bad as what we saw in the United States, though the country started from a much lower unemployment rate to begin with. Its stimulus as a percentage of GDP was also relatively large — about half as large as ours. Yet, Japan’s unemployment rate peaked in July 2009 and began to decline after that (see Figure 5 here).

The unemployment data shows that compared to these major countries, Americans have real reasons to be dissatisfied with Obama’s policies. It is also understandable why the vast majority of economists feel that Obama’s stimulus policies have spent a lot of money but produced no benefit. These same economists now expect the U.S. job market to improve, but that improvement won’t be due in any part thanks to Obama’s policies. It will just be due to the normal end of the recession.

As Obama travels the country today telling us what he is doing for us, Americans might do well to remember not just the huge bill that he has left our children and grandchildren, but how poorly he has done compared to other countries.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “More Guns, Less Crime” (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the book’s third edition will be published in May.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

And 48% of Americans polled don’t think porkulus will EVER create jobs.

And now we find out that the people were right.

We have to hold Democrats responsible for this travesty.  We have to vote them out, before they destroy the country more than they already have.

Team Obama Fails To Get Olympics, Blames Bush

I get the sense that the Obama administration has no idea how to do anything, and no longer even bothers to try to address issues facing the country.  Rather, they spend the entirety of every meeting trying to figure out how they can blame the increasing failures plaguing the administration (and in turn, the nation) on one George W. Bush.

Bush is to Obama what Emmanuel Goldstein was to Big Brother.  Bush Is The One Who Is To Receive All Blame.

You’d think Obama wouldn’t want to exhaust this well (there’s going to be a LOT more bad economic news, after all, to go with the increasingly bad news in Afghanistan and Iran).  But, nope.  He’s gonna to keep running to Bush derangement like a baby runs to mama every single time.

Did anti-American resentments play role in Chicago’s bid losing?

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentments likely played a role in Chicago’s Olympic bid dying in the first round today.

President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for decades before, they said.

“There must be” resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Plaza. “The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we mislead the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That’s why I thought the president’s going was the deal-maker.”

State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw first hand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro to speak as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

“This vote today was without a doubt ridiculously political and mean-spirited,” Mendoza said. “I travel a lot. I was literally nearly killed in Rio three years ago when I was there representing the U.S. Government. I thought we had really turned a corner with the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming of Americans now. But this isn’t the people of those countries. This is the leaders still living with an outdated impression of Americans.”

Just gag me with a spoon so I can hurl already.

As HotAir put it, “Copenhagen just a little too far away to have dead people cast a few votes for Chicago…”  And too far away for ACORN shenanigans to bail them out, too.

There were only four contestants, and Obama couldn’t even win the Bronze?  The Olympic Committee heard Obama’s spiel, and awarded him with Last Place.  Or as presidential historian Stephen Hess put it, “I think to be eliminated in the first round is very embarrassing, to put it mildly.”

Unless you can blame Emmanuel Goldstein for it, it sure is.

The article goes on to later quote Robert Gibbs:

Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected the notion that the vote was influenced by the United States’ standing around the world.

And, of course, Gibbs doesn’t HAVE to go out and show the White House’s sour grapes.  He – along with Obama – have a ton of leftists and lackeys to do the White House’s bidding for them.

It’s funny that the same media that was quite literally stupefied that The One couldn’t win the Olympic games (youtube) –

– was able to recover so immediately as to point out that Obama never really had a chance given that the world still hates that devil Bush.  The New York Daily News wrote:

Chicago was never going to get the Olympics. We know that now, and probably should have known it a week ago. Maybe the world doesn’t hate us as much as it did one year ago, but the International Olympic Committee certainly does.

And if that line doesn’t work, they still have the “a racist world wants Obama to fail” angle to pursue.

George Bush wasn’t going to get any excuses from the mainstream media unless his people went out and MADE the excuse.  And when they did offer an a justifying narrative, it usually got instantaneously dismissed by a media that couldn’t wait to poke every hole they could find in the Bush account.  When it comes to Obama, though every failure immediately has as many media narratives as will be necessary to explain away that failure.  Their very favorite one can be summed up in two words: blame Bush.

We find that – even with identical unemployment situations – the media treated Ronald Reagan and their beloved Barack Obama very differently.  Reagan received 91% coverage, and a steady diet of blame for the high unemployment figures, whereas Obama The Beloved has received only 7% negative coverage for the same figures.  This whopping disparity is due to two phenomena:

1) The mainstream media is every bit as biased toward the left as Pravda used to be biased toward the Communist Party.

2) Reagan didn’t spend all of his time bitching and whining about how he had inherited every possible scintilla of negative developments on his disastrous predecessor Jimmy Carter.  Rather, he manned-up and solved the problems facing the country.

I don’t think that Obama has so much as a molecule of that “spirit of manning-up” in him.  Rather, he is a demagogue, from the alpha to the omega. He’s the kind of man who demonized George Bush or Hillary Clinton for pursuing the very same policies that he himself is now pursuing; and he’s the kind of man who said he wouldn’t raise our taxes, and then weaseled around by pretending that his health care tax wasn’t in fact a tax.

Harry Truman had his famous sign that said, “The buck stops here.”  Like the bust of great WWII leader Winston Churchill, Obama threw that notion out.  Obama has a very different mindset from either of those great leaders.  As far as Obama is concerned, the buck stops at Bush — and it won’t stop anywhere else, until something happens that makes him look good.

Let’s face facts: Obama’s decision to go to Denmark to pitch for his profiteering and slum-owning Chicago pals was stupid.  He made the Olympics all about himself just by going, and then made incredibly narcissistic pitches to the Olympic committee.  And if the speeches hadn’t already filled the nearest barf buckets, Michele wailed that their luxury travel to luxury accommodations in Denmark was just “such a sacrifice.” The Drudge Report probably expressed it best: “The Ego Has Landed.”

G.O.P. leader Michael Steele said Obama should stay home and take care of pressing business such as health care, high unemployment, and Afghanistan rather than run off to Europe to pitch Chicago.  The Obama White House responded by demagoguing Steele, and accusing him of rooting for Brazil instead of America.  Well, not it’s time to get a demagoguery pay back: not only did Obama abandon American troops in Afghanistan and unemployed workers in America to run off to Europe to beg for the games so he could “wrap up his second term as president by opening the 2016 Olympic Games in Chicago.” Because the whole damn planet revolves around him, doesn’t it?  And then The Most Popular President In The History Of The World couldn’t even get that rather lame job done.

Hey, Gibbs, maybe Steele was actually rooting for American’s rather than Obama’s future prestige.  You might tell your boss to do the same.

Barack Obama argued that the Olympics could help America repair its image – because he himself is so profoundly un-American that he believes it ever needed to be “repaired” in the first place.