Posts Tagged ‘campaign contributions’

Proof For All Time Of Unhinged Hypocrisy And Bias From The Pseudo-Journalist Class And The Rank-And-File Democrat

January 30, 2017

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected.  And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

There was an article about journalism and the “end of democracy” in the previous days’ sanctimonious hate-offering of all things Trump.  Under the title, “The vicious cycle that leads to the end of democracy,” I saw these words:

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party.  The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

Eric Schwitzgebel fails throughout his piece to acknowledge on dirty little factoid, namely that 96 percent of journalists are progressive liberals who supported Hillary Clinton:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics?  Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

As an example, in 2012, 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations went to Obama.

Does such lightning of bias strike twice?  Yep:

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

And yeah, once again, the end result for academia was an overwhelming bias for Democrats and an overwhelming rabid bias against Republicans.

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem.  After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.”  They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow.  Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where  we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

I have to laugh at Eric.  Here is an example of what he claims to believe as the two abiding principles for his particular academic discipline:

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”?  HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL???  “Creative vigor”?  I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side.  I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

p1200085

p1200086

p1200087

p1200088

p1200089

p1200090

p1200091

p1200092

p1200093

p1200094

p1200095

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

  • CONFUSION REIGNS: Trump calls travel ban a success as chaos mounts on many fronts
  • Thousands of protesters turn out at airports, and even top Republicans criticize the directive.
  • GOP’s case of whiplash: Republicans hoped for collaboration between the White House and Congress, but Trump isn’t making it easy.
  • Police wary of new duty: Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers.
  • BONDS MADE CLOSER: Muslim Americans ‘standing shoulder to shoulder’
  • You can’t build a wall on a river: Border fence must be set back from Rio Grande, leaving some Texans on wrong side.
  • Screening under scrutiny: Trump wants ‘extreme vetting,’ but refugees already face tough checks
  • Mexico braces for uncertain era: Trump’s tough talk on cross-border trade threatens to cut off region’s lifeblood.
  • Bernie Sanders of France wins vote: Benoit Hamon triumphs in the Socialist Party primary for president.
  • River poses challenge to wall plan (continuing ‘You can’t build a wall’ story)
  • 5 killed at Quebec City mosque
  • Trump’s powerful political duo: Travel ban signals the intent by advisors Bannon and Miler to reshape the country.
  • New duties would ‘create a wedge’ (continuing ‘Police wary of new duty’ article)
  • Riled veterans leap to Muslims’ defense: Military members offer support to Iraqi interpreters blocked by Trump’s order
  • Are plans for jobs just PR? Trump is taking credit for them, but skeptics say many were already in the works.
  • Travel ban hits a community hard (continuing ‘BONDS MADE CLOSER’ article)
  • A reprise of anxiety, heartbreak (continuing ‘CONFUSION REIGNS’ article)
  • Trump’s actions are blindsiding the GOP (continuing ‘GOP’s case of whiplash’ article)
  • How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.
  • Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]
  • A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper.  Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical.  For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy???  But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count.  And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked?  But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children.  And that’s all that matters.  Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

Do you want to see “emotional”???  How about Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer weeping and sobbing at just what a mean, bad, mean old man Donald Trump is???

Donald Trump’s response:

“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning,” he wrote. “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”

Have to admit I loved this meme:

liberal-tears

PLEASE, lefties, PLEASE don’t give me this garbage crap about being “emotionally invested” coming from the right.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist.  But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing.  Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

How about the article on “Riled veterans”?  Does that title give you the suggestion that veterans voted for Trump by a 2-1 margin???  And literally are the ones who gave Trump his swing-state victories that propelled him to the White House???  How about the fact that for career-oriented troops that form the backbone of our nation’s military and our national security, the margin favoring Trump was THREE to one???

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.”  Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES.  Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating?  Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate.  But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting.  But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?”  Dead cops!”  When do we want it?”  “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers.  And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated.  And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We have that Time Magazine White House pool correspondent who wrote a post slandering Donald Trump as a racist for removing the Martin Luther King, Jr. bust.  Why did he assume that?  Well, he glanced at where it was and didn’t see it.  Why didn’t he see it?  Didn’t matter to him at the time in his rabid, unhinged, fanatic desire to post it.  It turned out that a Secret Service agent was blocking his view.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

Kellyanne Conway is asking the question: when will these lie peddlers be FIRED for “presenting the facts as their slandering bias compels them to understand them????

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive.  And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today.  THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today.  And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist.  Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”  Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

This is NOT science, it is “magic.”  Billions of years are NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TIME for “the magic” of evolution to occur if you actually believe in legitimate science.

But “academia” is purging and destroying ANYONE no matter how credentialed or how accomplished that scientist might be who disagrees with “the acceptable narrative.”

And you want to talk about “creativity” and “arguments”???

We’re seeing the same rabid spirit of academic fascism on another front that we have seen for decades in the myth of godless evolution.

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist who had held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, resigned in protest of the modern-day witch-hunt that has become academia today, saying, “A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

Do you know what caused the end of the Old Egyptian Kingdom?  It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution, liberal progressive crazies.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Do you know what caused the collapse of the Mayan Civilization?  It wasn’t SUVs, liberal progressive whackjobs.  It was “climate change” that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.  Because our climate just changes; it’s unstoppableIt is a FACT of both science and logic that the hated Bogeyman of CO2 produces less than 0.1 percent of all global warming gases; just as it is a fact that nature creates thirty damn times the CO2 that human beings do.  The left, out of POLITICAL rather than SCIENTIFIC ideology, made CO2 (which is actually essential for life on planet earth) an earth-murdering poison and ignored all the other global warming gases such as water vapor which accounts for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of global warming gases.  Or to put it another way, IT’S THE WATER VAPOR, NOT THE CO2, YOU DAMN FOOLS.

But what the hell; we’re Nazis and Stalinists masquerading as “scientists,” and so everything we say must surely be “scientific” no matter how UNSCIENTIFIC it clearly is.

Eric wants us to worship rabid leftist bias that is masqueraded as “science” and “journalism” as “fact.”

What we have in both fields is nothing short of intellectual STALINISM.

HERE is an example of a rabid, disgraced FOOL who is BOTH an “academic” AND a “journalist.”  And he disgraced himself on BOTH fronts.  Which is why he was given a Nobel Prize, I suppose.

You have discredited yourselves.  Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth.  Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative.  You’ve done it over and over and over again.

The bottom line is this, Eric: where were YOU when Barack Obama announced the New Reality: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Or to put the New Reality another way, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive.  Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism.  For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then  issuing them anyway.  And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS.  YOU DEMANDED THIS.  YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals.  But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party.  He lost the White House.  He lost the House.  He lost the Senate.  He lost a giant number of governorships.  He lost a giant number of state houses.  He’s a disgrace.  And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the  only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.”  They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Barack Obama Is The Same Lying Cheating Fraud He Was Back In ’08 With His Illegal Overseas Campaign Donations

October 22, 2012

Same old lying song, same old lying dance.  Obama is accepting campaign donations from foreigners.  Again.

CNBC earlier proved that “foreign-connected money” goes to Democrats by a wide margin.  So this isn’t really anything new:

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation — and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” spokesman Michael Czin said.

The Obama campaign’s apparent lack of safeguards makes it possible to violate the law, says a report released by the Government Accountability Institute, a Florida-based watchdog group.

The report found that one Obama site — Obama.com — gets almost half of its traffic from foreign computer addresses. The site directs users to an Obama donation page.

“We are not suggesting that just foreign traffic by itself is a problem,” said Peter Schweizer, president of the GAI. “But for a campaign that is very sophisticated in its fund-raising capabilities, they do not make one effort to try to even see or ask somebody to check a box that says they are a US citizen.”

Obama’s re-election campaign took in $130,867 from donors who provided no ZIP codes and $2 million from those with incomplete ZIPs in September.

That same month, Romney’s campaign recorded $2,450 from donors without ZIP codes and $2,500 from those with incomplete ZIPs.

Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

“I have not had any e-mails asking for proof of identity,” Walker said.

The GAI report found the Obama campaign Web sites do not ask donors to provide their three-digit card-verification value, or CVV, numbers to ensure they are the legitimate holders of the card. Romney’s campaign asks for such information, which is considered a standard security measure.

One conduit for Obama donations is Obama.com, which was registered in 2008 to Robert Roche, an American who lives and works in China, where he owns an infomercial company.

Roche is also a bundler for the Obama campaign and was given a seat at the head table for a 2011 state dinner with the Chinese president

The GAI report said that the site registration was changed in 2010 to make it anonymous and that it was unclear whether Roche still owns it.

Roche’s mother in Chicago referred calls to the Obama campaign. The campaign declined to comment.

Oh, well.  You remember Obama’s hot mike moment where he promised the Russians that if they laid off him and helped him get reelected, he’d be “more flexible” to rat-sodomize America.  You know that Russia wants Obama to give them the American farm.  And if we are stupid enough to elect the fool, we’re stupid enough to give Russia the (last) farm, too.

New York Times Woefully Examines The Likelihood Of Another Republican Asskicking House Election In 2012. Then Consider The Implications For Obama.

July 30, 2012

This caught my eye, given all the various predictions and hand-wringing over all the many polls:

For House Democrats 2012 will be at least as bad as 2010, but chances are it will be worse
By Kevin “Coach” Collins, on July 28th, 2012

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back. This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

A hand wringing New York Times analysis lays out the grim situation for its Party:

“The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower.

Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight. They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies. They’re still trying to get their base to hate the TEA party but every charge they make is a lie so it falls flat. Now they are telling their Christian base to hate Christian doctrine and love Democrats which is also doomed to failure.

There is no group Obama lost in 2008 that he is winning now and no group (not even African Americans) he won in 2008 that he is doing better with today. Now that voters have a clearer idea of what he is all about, Barack Obama will be an even bigger drag on his Party this year than he was in 2010 when the GOP took 63 seats in a landslide not seen since 1938.

Americans are NOT going to the polls to vote against Barack Obama then vote for a Democrat in their Congressional district as Mister Israel fantasizes. Come November Democrat policies will sink them in large numbers.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/republicans-and-democrats-fight-for-control-of-the-house.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

To read about how hypocritical the Democrats have been over the past 200 years. Get you copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at:http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

Here is the map the New York Times created.  It is interactive if you go to the article available (again) here:

I admit, it might be my eyes are messed up or something.  But I don’t see the blue tidal wave of adoration for Obama.  I see the red of a bunch or Republicans rising up in righteous outrage.

We’re seeing a lot of polls coming out that apparently favor Obama.  They have two major weaknesses:

1) Flawed polling methodology.  Recently we had a poll that had Obama up by six points over Romney.  What you have to dig a little more into is the fact that the poll had a sampling distribution that favored Democrats by 11 points over Republicans.  That’s a 2008 model.  Well, please understand: 2008 went bye-bye for Obama.  He’s simply not going to have the sort of overwhelming Democrat tide that he had in 2008 – and any polling methodology that assumes he will is deeply flawed and in fact biased.

When we can routinely point to polls that skew toward Democrats by seventeen points, we can point to an invalid poll.

2) Voter turnout.  I’m not hearing predictions that Democrats will vote for Romney in substantial numbers the way we had “Reagan Democrats.”  The question is, how energized are Democrats to show up and vote?  The fact of the matter is that voter enthusiasm was ALL in Democrats’ favor in 2008 – and the fact of the matter is that it is now a mirror image with the same levels of enthusiasm now favoring Republicans.  The most heavily Democrat voter groups such as blacks and youth are already showing a substantial enthusiasm gap which predict that they will NOT turn out the way they did in 2008.

Fittingly, Democrats have been dropping out in such droves rather than be seen with Obama that Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Democrats should just skip the whole damn thing altogether:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina.

“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s “On Congress,” a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I find this historic. I don’t believe any party leader has ever called for that party to abandon their own national convention.

To add insult to injury for Democrats, the labor unions that form the backbone of the Democrat Party machine are literally planning on holding their own convention and tuning out the DNC Convention in North Carolina:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three weeks before the Democratic National Convention this summer, union leaders plan to hold their own “shadow convention” to promote labor issues they believe too many elected officials are ignoring.

The union gathering in Philadelphia on Aug. 11 was inspired by the anger many labor officials felt after Democrats decided to stage their nominating convention in North Carolina, a right-to-work state that is the least unionized in the country.

Most unions are still planning to attend the Charlotte, N.C., convention, but more than a dozen are boycotting it. Other unions are not spending big money on the convention as they have in the past.

Does this sound positive for Democrats?  And compare these developments to when Obama was parading around as “the messiah” at the enormous 2008 Democratic National Convention with an ostentatatious Grecian Temple platform to magnify his wonderful wonderfulness.

Numerous polls are assuming it’s Obama messiah magic all over again with their assumptions, but reality seems to be screaming a very different message.

Here’s another example: Democrats are refusing to pay their dues to the Democrat Party to the tune of a full third of the entire caucus not paying ANYTHING to go with an even larger group who have only paid a portion:

Prying open members’ fists is an election year ritual for leaders of both parties, but Democrats contend this time around has been particularly frustrating. Facing a team of deep-pocketed Republican outside groups poised to swamp them in TV ad spending — and with the party not benefiting from the kind of wave conditions that lifted Republicans two years ago — Democrats say the stinginess of their lawmakers has left them severely weakened as the fall campaign season approaches.

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

The push hasn’t had much success. As of June 30, 64 Democrats — around one-third of the entire caucus — hadn’t paid anything to the DCCC, according to a party document provided to POLITICO. Another 109 members had paid only a portion of what they owe in dues, which are calculated based on seniority and committee assignments.

In June, GOP members flooded the National Republican Congressional Committee with nearly $6.4 million. The DCCC secured just $1.8 million from Democratic lawmakers.

THAT is a Democrat enthusiasm gap.  This isn’t a happy, enthused, energized party saying let’s work together to win with and for our messiah.  This is a bunch of professional politicians who see a lot of numbers that the rest of us don’t get to see who are saying in several important ways, “It’s every DemocRAT for himself.”

To other factors promise to make what Democrats are already seeing as really, really bad even WORSE:

1) Money.  Obama raised more money in 2008 than any politician in the entire history of the world.  Guess what’s happened since?  Obama has alienated and frankly enraged many of the deep pockets that he won in 2008 with his lies and empty promises and meaningless rhetoric.  The advantage is now on Romney’s side.  Obama is going deep into the hole now to spend money while Romney is unable to open the floodgates until he is the official GOP nominee, but come August Romney will be able to release the hounds on Obama.  Obama has been attempting – apparently without much success – to demonize Romney and “frame” him before he is able to spend money to answer all the lies in all the bogus Obama ads.  If Romney is able to weather this storm, the worm will begin to turn come August after the GOP Convention.

2) The economy.  Job growth is slowing to so far below the threshold needed just to keep up with population growth it isn’t funny.  We just saw that GDP growth is so meager that we are very close to stall speed and a dreaded double-dip recession.  Consumer confidence is plunging.  Record numbers of Americans are on food stamps compared to any other time in US history and we’ve got more Americans filing for disability than we’ve got Americans getting jobs.  This is by far and away the WEAKEST and most miserable “recovery” in US history because Obama’s policies are so wrong and he simply will not LET the economy recover.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the economy will get any better between now and election day and damn GOOD reason to believe it will be getting WORSE.  Nouriel Roubini, an economist who is famous for having predicted the 2008 economic implosion, believes that the economy will get WORSE.  Economist Peter Morici is writing about a soon-coming economic collapse.

That’s the real record Obama is running on: from bad to worse.

Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, there is absolutely no way the CIA and the SEALs could have got Obama.  Why?  Because getting bin Laden was a miracle, and only messiah Obama could possibly have ever performed this miracle.  Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, the US economy would still be losing 700,000 jobs a month, and only messiah Obama had the superhuman wisdom to lead America to the worst “recovery” in the history of the nation.  The only way “pathetic” can be viewed as “glorious” is if we ignore the reality that 1) no recession has EVER lasted forever and it wouldn’t have lasted forever if George Bush were president, either, and that 2) that most US recessions last less than 18 months with 3) recoveries generally being the strongest when the recessions have been deepest.  Which is to say that if Obama wasn’t an abject failure we’d have GDP growth of 10 percent the way we did when Ronald Reagan was running en route to a landslide re-election.

Obama has to ignore all of that.  He has to say, “This economic holocaust that you see all around you is really a Utopia.  And the Promised Land is right around the corner, ye herd of mindless animals.”

All that said, I’m not going to predict that Mitt Romney wins in a landslide.  Or even that he wins at all.

Why?  Because this is God damn America, just like I told you it would be back in November 4 of 2008.  God damn America is not a land of wise and good people; no, it is a land of fools and wicked people.  And fools and wicked people pursue their own destruction until God gives it to them the way they deserve.

If we re-elect Obama – and 2008 proved there are more than enough fools and wicked people to pull it off – we will get the fools’ end that we demand God give us.

It’s going to come fast, too.  Because Taxmageddon is coming.  And given that the Republicans are going to retake the House, if Obama wins, every American will find himself or herself paying taxes right out of their ass.  And given that pretty much every economist agrees that “taxmageddon” will amount to a double-dip recession, the re-election of Obama will amount to a double-dip recession.  And America will deserve it in spades.

The sequestration that is also looming over America because Barack Obama is a fool and a failure who cannot and will not lead are another nuclear trigger for this double-dip recession: as many as 1.53 million defense sector workers will get their pink slips right before and right after the election unless Obama pulls his skull out of his ass.  And given that Obama has had his skull up his ass his entire life, that isn’t very likely.  Instead, Obama has actually promised to veto any attempt to keep these 1.53 million workers employed.  Which makes the 100,000 jobs that Obama has already pissed away with his idiotic radical environmentalist lobby-owned killing of the Keystone Pipeline look like chump change.

Democrats are already firmly on record vowing to take America off the fiscal cliff unless Republicans abandon all sanity and join them in their Marxist class warfare against job creators and investors:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 15, Washington Post
Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Either everybody should get a tax cut or everybody should get taxed up the wazoo.  If you think that somebody else ought to have their taxes raised, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED.  By the measure that ye judged, YE shall be judged.  You want someone else to pay so you can skate?  You should be taxed until you can’t feed your kids; you should be taxed until you can’t make your house payments; you should be taxed until your car is repossessed.  All of you wicked fools should get both barrels of what you want to inflict on other people.

The only great thing about Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney in any other respect.  His entire career is of being a liberal-leaning moderate – contrary to the demonic Obama ads that depict him as some kind of fire-breathing rightwing conservative fanatic.  But I am TOTALLY enthusiastic about ridding this nation of the scourge of the worst president in our entire history.  And I will crawl out of my death bed through broken glass to vote for Romney for that very reason.

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

July 2, 2012

Barack Obama is the most pathologically dishonest man who ever contaminated the White House. 

He has lied about everything else, so this really shouldn’t be much of a surprise.

After the ObamaCare verdict in which John Roberts sided with the liberals to protect the Supreme Court from unhinged Democrat rabid attacks, we had the following assertion:

Fund-raising flurry after Supreme Court ruling
Posted by CNN’s Rachel Streitfeld and Kevin Bohn

(CNN) – Both presidential campaigns are citing fund-raising spikes following the Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Mitt Romney’s organization said Friday morning it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama’s operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said they had surpassed Team Romney’s announced total.

The Romney fund-raising figure included money from more than 47,000 contributions in the first 24 hours, the candidate’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul said.

Obama’s campaign wouldn’t reveal specific fund-raising numbers when asked, saying Friday their opponent’s hour-by-hour updates were “perverse.” They did assert, however, that their donations surpassed the Romney effort.

Do you want to know what is “peverse”???  Barack Obama in the White House.

The lying weasel was caught on tape pleading for money because an avalanche of doom is falling on this lying narcissist.  The ObamaCare verdict came out on June 28.  Within 24 hours – that’s by 10 AM Eastern time June 29, Romney said he had raised $4.6 million from 47,000 new donors.

Obama says he’s raised more.

But then THE VERY NEXT DAY there’s THIS:

Exclusive: President Obama Asks Campaign Donors to Send Him More Money
by Lloyd Grove Jun 30, 2012 6:40 PM EDT
In an anxious conference call from Air Force One, Obama asked campaign donors to send more money. Lloyd Grove obtained the tape and describes the presidential pitch.

President Obama sounded weary and maybe a tad worried late Friday during a rambling conference call with campaign donors whom he repeatedly begged to send money—and send it now.

“The majority on this call maxed out to my campaign last time. I really need you to do the same this time,” the president said in a highly unusual (and presumably legal) fundraising pitch from Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Colorado Springs, where he’d been assessing the terrible damage caused by uncontained wildfires. A special phone on the government aircraft is dedicated to political calls that are paid for by the campaign.

“I’m asking you to meet or exceed what you did in 2008,” the presidential pitchman continued, speaking to donors who were invited to dial in based on their contributions during the last election. “Because we’re going to have to deal with these super PACs in a serious way. And if we don’t, frankly I think the political [scene] is going to be changed permanently. Because the special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”

The president’s 18-minute pleading—a recording of which was provided to The Daily Beast by an Obama contributor—hardly sounded like a man doing a victory lap after Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act has come to be known. Or, for that matter, like a candidate who has been beating his Republican opponent in recent polls of key battleground states.

Rather, Obama sounded like a dog-tired idealist forced to grapple painfully with hard reality. “In 2008 everything was new and exciting about our campaign,” Obama said. “And now I’m the incumbent president. I’ve got gray hair. People have seen disappointment because folks had a vision of change happening immediately. And it turns out change is hard, especially when you’ve got an obstructionist Republican Congress.”

But lest any of his donors believe the president sounded depressed, Obama quickly added: “Nevertheless, we’ve gotten more done in the last three years than most presidents do in eight years … I just hope you guys haven’t become disillusioned. I hope all of you still understand what’s at stake and why this is so important … I still believe in you guys, and I hope you still believe in me and the possibilities of this campaign.”

“The special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”

In his most detailed assessment of the race so far, Obama lamented the cash advantage of Republican nominee-designate Mitt Romney, but offered hope that he could win reelection with a superior ground game and a more popular message. “We don’t have to match these guys dollar for dollar because we’ve got a better grassroots operation and we’ve got a better message,” he said. “The American people—the nice thing is they agree with our message when they hear it. We just can’t be drowned out … A few billionaires can’t drown out millions of voices.”

Obama noted that campaign-finance law requires both him and Romney to release monthly reports on fundraising—“and that could be a double-edged sword,” he said. “The downside is that the media hear these numbers and hyperventilate over it, and there’s a tendency to blow them out of proportion. But it does make the process more transparent. We see where we stand. And right now on a month-to-month basis, we’ve fallen behind.”

The president added: “Last month the Romney campaign raised $76 million. We raised $60 million.” That determines “our planning for whether or not we are gonna go on the air in Florida or Ohio or any of these battleground states, how much advertising we buy, what we spend when it comes to organizing teams.”

He added: “The truth is that early money is always more valuable than late money. And what we don’t want to do is be in a situation where, because everybody thinks that somehow we’re gonna win or people will just think Mr. Romney doesn’t know what he’s talking about—and then suddenly we get surprised later because it turns out that a couple of billionaires wrote $20 million checks and have bought all the TV time and we find ourselves flat-footed in September or October … We’ve got to make sure that we purchase advertising through August and September before the conventions,” he went on. “I think it’s fair to say that if we wait till the last minute we could be in for a pretty rude surprise, and that’s part of what we’re trying to avoid.”

The president warned: “I can’t do this by myself, and the progress we’ve made could unravel pretty quickly.” He urged his listeners on the conference call to contribute “today or as soon as possible” because “we’ve got to have the resources to make the choice crystal clear for the American people both in the air and on the ground.” Obama’s solicitation was followed up by an urgent email from campaign manager Jim Messina asking recipients to write a check immediately.

“The good news is we’re spending a lot more money on our ground game and grassroots organizing and voter registration,” the president said. “We just can’t be outspent 10 to 1. That’s what happened in Wisconsin recently. The Koch brothers and their allies,” he said, referring to billionaire conservative super-PAC funders David and Charles Koch, “spent more than the other side’s entire campaign—our side’s entire campaign.”

Obama contrasted the former Massachusetts governor unfavorably with Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee last time around. “We’re facing a much different opponent than last time,” the president warned. “I don’t mean just the candidate—although last time we were running against somebody who at least believed in climate change, believed in campaign-finance reform, believed in immigration reform.”

“It’s also because the landscape’s changed because of the Supreme Court ruling Citizens United,” continued Obama. “We are going to see more money spent on negative ads through these super PACs and anonymous outside groups than ever before. And if things continue as they have so far, I’ll be the first sitting president in modern history to be outspent in his reelection campaign.”

Every single thing this turd liar-in-chief and his dishonest staff of campaign cockroaches says is pure dishonest lie.  It’s really quite remarkable.

I wrote about this story as it developed on June 29.  I pointed out then:

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more. The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

It is of course nice to be vindicated with the TRUTH.  If you have anything to do with Obama, you never get TRUTH.

I also pointed out the map of the historic ass-kicking that the enraged American people hit the genuinely evil Democrat Party with to punish it for the ObamaCare fiasco:

I also pointed out previously that Barack Obama – who lied to the American people when he became the first major party nominee for president to EVER refuse public matching funds

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

– is now getting hung on his own damn petard.  Because the fact of the matter is that there has never been a worse political whore for campaign cash in the history of the planet than Barack Obama.  Obama is a weasel who has attended more campaign fundraisers with more crony capitalist special interest weasels than the last five presidents COMBINED

Thanks to ObamaCare, conservatives and independents – who despise ObamaCare by an overwhelming margin – will crawl across broken glass to give Mitt Romney money to get this evil narcissist turd out of the people’s house.

In 2010 the American people rose up to kick the asses of Democrats something fierce.  And that was when ObamaCare WASN’T the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the entire republic.

Which serves to remind of yet ANOTHER example of just how pathologically dishonest Barack Obama and the Obama Campaign truly is.  ObamaCare was declared constitutional ONLY as a tax.  IT IS A TAX.  That is now a documented FACT.  But good luck getting any of the pathological liars of the Obama camp to acknowledge that truth or the fact that Barack Obama is now a documented LIAR:

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.  It is THE largest tax increase EVER on the middle class.

And it is time to get this lying weasel out of our lives.

Mitt Romeny Racks Up 47,000 Donations Totalling Over $4.6 Million In 24 Hours After ObamaCare Decision Announced

June 29, 2012

Maxine Waters said to the Tea Party, “Let’s get it on!”

Well, game on, you corrupt, dishonest hack.

Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a frightening prediction for Japan even as all of his fleet was celebrating their apparently wild success at Pearl Harbor:

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

Obama and Democrats most certainly have a moment of success that was handed to them by Bush-appointee John Roberts.  But history amply documents that many such apparent victories turn out to be slow-moving disasters for those who celebrate them.  Not only is the ObamaCare that can now only be overturned by Republicans still wildly unpopular – and most importantly, wildly unpopular with independents to the tune of a whopping 70 percent who wanted it repealed – but it is also now officially the largest tax on the middle class in American history.  And that torpedoes Obama’s primary campagin rhetoric to be the protector of the middle class.

Then there’s also this: ObamaCare just ignited the Romney base to white-hot anger and very terrible resolve:

Romney campaign donations hit $4.6 million following health care decision
In a brief televised statement following the decision, Romney vowed that his first priority upon entering the White House would be repealing the so-called Obamacare law.
By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, June 29, 2012, 1:17 PM

President Obama may have won the health care battle at the Supreme Court, but Mitt Romney is claiming a victory in the money wars.

Since the court released its stunning 5-4 decision upholding Obama’s health care law Thursday morning, the Romney campaign has taken in a flood of donations from Republican supporters angry about the ruling.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted Friday that the campaign received more than 47,000 online donations totaling $4.6 million in the 24 hours since the ruling.

The surge in small donations indicates that the decision may be an effective weapon for Republicans to mobilize conservatives for the general election.

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more.  The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

In 2010 enraged Americans rose up in righteous outrage over the even-then wildly unpopular ObamaCare and gave Democrats a historic ass-kicking:

[Consider] the sheer extent of the disaster Obama led the Democrat Party into: this wasn’t the worst election drubbing since 1994; it was the worst election drubbing since 1938 (and since 1928 in the state legislatures).

We also took 11 governorships.

Here is the map of that 2010 ass-kicking (red = “Democrats SUCK!”):

Well, now ObamaCare is back on the table.  You are literally voting for your very lives, people.  Time to get really, really angry again.

And now Obama is a big-time major documented liar to go with being a narcissistic sociopath:

[ObamaCare is] the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase. It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact. And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying. Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity. And you aint seen nothin’ yet. Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed. And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed. And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO. But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent. And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

This is what you will be voting for in 2012: do you want the kind of government-controlled health care system in which hundreds of thousands of elderly patients are terminated every single year just to make bed-space available as the inefficient government system crashes into chaos?  To put it into parallel terms given the population differences, 130,000 British elderly citizens euthanized every year amounts to at least 687,000 elderly Americans terminated.

Do you want 160 death panels?

Vote for Romney.  Vote for your very own life and most certainly forn the lives of your parents and grandparents.

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!’

June 7, 2012

I kept hearing over and over again in the media that Scott Walker was outspending the Democrat loser 7-1.

Here’s one particularly pathetic take on that:

Voter Cries Over WI Recall: Signaling Death Of Democracy, ‘End Of USA As We Know It’
video
by Meenal Vamburkar | 11:35 pm, June 5th, 2012

Wisconsin’s intense, passionate recall battle came to a close Tuesday night, with Scott Walker retaining his title as governor. After the projections were in, CNN headed to Badger State to get some reactions — including one from a Tom Barrettsupporter who was very emotional. Unable to hold back tears, he lamented the results, angrily decrying the end of democracy.

RELATED: Republican Scott Walker Wins Wisconsin Recall Election

Before cutting to the voter, Mike, John King noted that he “underscored” his disappointment. “We’re not just disappointed,” the voter said, “this is the end of democracy.”

Noting they got outspent $34 million to $4 million, he said, “This was the biggest election in America.” Becoming more emotional, he went on to say, “Democracy died tonight.” Acknowledging he’s “very emotional,” he broke into tears, saying, “This was it. If we didn’t win tonight, the end of the USA as we know it just happened.”

Before King chimed back in, the voter got his message in once more: “Democracy’s dead.”

Take a look, via CNN [see site for embedded video]:

The same video is currently available on Youtube:

How terrible was it when Obama was outspending John McCain by 3-1 and even by as much as 5-1????  Oh, it was a good thing, then.  Great for democracy, you know.

Well, it turns out that it is a LIE that Democrats got outspent $34 million to $4 million, and that the Walker recall was won because Republicans unfairly amassed huge out-of-state money while honest Democrats tried vainly to use the state electoral process and got crushed.

It turns out that the same media that counted every single penny that Republicans raised somehow managed to overlook $21 million in out-of-state union money:

Spending Gap? Media Ignores $21 Million Unions Spent in WI
by Ben Shapiro June 6, 2012

The spin from the left on the morning after their disastrous Wisconsin recall election failure is that Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), who walked away with the election, did so because he spent oodles of money.

Politico’s takeaway: “Money shouts.” “Walker wins one for the plutocrats,” trumpeted Joan Walsh of Salon.com. “Outspent 7-1, Democrats couldn’t beat Scott Walker with a strong ground game.” Media Matters’ favorite Washington Post columnist, Greg Sargent, cited the Citizens United decision allowing corporate political spending no less than five times in his recap of the election – despite the fact that not one dollar spent in Wisconsin would have been illegal before Citizens United. The Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “Being outspent 10-1 (or worse) is never a recipe for success in a race. Democrats cried foul over Walker’s exploitation of a loophole that allowed him to collect unlimited contributions prior to the official announcement of the recall in late March.” Daily Kos said that with Walker’s spending edge, “It shouldn’t even be close.”

This is false.

Overall, over $63.5 million was spent on the recall effort by various parties. Walker spent about $30 million; Barrett spent about $4 million. Most of the money spent by Walker came from out-of-state sources – The Republican Governors Association spent about $4 million, almost all from out-of-state; the Kochs gave $1 million; the Chamber of Commerce gave $500,000. On the surface, then, it appears that Walker had a tremendous cash advantage.

Not so fast. As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election. When it came to state senate recall elections back in September 2011, Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.

While Politico’s Glenn Thrush says that there’s “only one paragraph you really need to read this ayem, courtesy of the Center for Public Integrity,” then quotes a paragraph talking about Walker’s biggest donors, that’s hackish reporting. The CPI actually adds:

Campaign contributions tell only part of the story. National unions have kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker. More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have channeled at least $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based independent expenditure groups.

It’s also worth noting that while Republicans largely had to build their ground game from the ground up, labor unions have a consistent ground game – funded by tax dollars. All of the donations to Walker and pro-Walker groups were not mandated. The same is not true of Big Labor dollars, which come from mandatory unions dues in most cases.

In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.

Scott Walker won last night because he is a good governor. He didn’t win because of a money advantage, even though Wisconsin rules heavily favor incumbent politicians who are recalled (they can raise unlimited contributions from individuals after recall petitions are filed, whereas opponents cannot take more than $10,000 from individuals). The media’s attempt to pass this election off as a win for big money simply doesn’t hold water.

Okay, so Democrats tried to raise tons of money for this race outside Wisconsin.  Only Republicans raised more money from out-of-state.  And therefore Democrats say out-of-state money is unfair even though they have been doing it for YEARS and tried to do it again here.

So why did “The end of the USA as we know it just happen”????

Because now Republicans are fighting back.

I make a point in an article I just published that points out a few facts:

Speaking of fundraisers, it’s actually amazing: not only has Obama raised more campaign money from Wall Street “fat cats” than any politician in American history, but in fact Obama has plainly and simply pimped more money than any politician in the history of the entire human race. Which is to say that when Obama just keeps going from fundraiser to fundraiser to fundraiser (having attended more of them than the last five previous presidents COMBINED), he’s just obeying his weasel nature.

Obama has raised more money from “greedy” and “fat cat” Wall Street than any politician who ever lived:

The audacity is breathtaking.

The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.

Even poor Mitt Romney was outraised by the Obama money machine at his former employer, Bain Capital, by a margin of 2 to 1.

It is a campaign operation whose wheels are greased by Wall Street bundlers like MF Global former chief, Jon Corzine. These financiers are so good at what they do that the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama’s Wall Street fundraising will “far surpass 2008 in terms of raw dollars and as a percentage of what he raises overall.”

That’s saying a lot considering that Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign in 2008 raised more money from the financial community than any other politician in American history.

Obama has raised more money than any politician who ever walked the planet earth:

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

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

According to the New York Daily News, the Center results found the President to have raised more than 217 million dollars so far for this campaign, while his November opponent Mitt Romney has made just fewer than 100 million dollars.

Obama has attended and whore himself out at more money-grubbing fundraisers than the last previous five presidents COMBINED:

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

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

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

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

In another recent article I wrote I point out that it was none other than Barack Hussein Obama who totally destroyed any limits on campaign contributions when he broke his word of honor and became the first presidential candidate in American history to abandon the public matching funds that set LIMITS on fundraising:

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

And now the very same Democrats who pissed on limits for campaign money are the biggest whiners over the huge money because suddenly they aren’t able to raise as much.

As righteously outraged as the Democrats are over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, that decision was merely the Supreme Court recognizing that in Barack Obama Democrats had destroyed the process that had always previously existed before – even though Democrats had always cheated in that process with big union money – and decided to completely open the process to allow the right to compete.

I point out in that immediately above article:

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

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

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

The hypocrisy is astonishing.  The Democrats who are so livid over the injustice of “non-persons” contributing campaign money have greedily taken “non-person” big union money for decades.

Just like a corporation, a union is a group of people organized into a common cause.  So if Democrats want to get “non-persons” out of political contributions, just have them repay the Republican Party every single dime they’ve accepted from unions over the last hundred years, adjusted for inflation and along with componded interest.  And then we can undo Citizens United.  Until then, kindly eat your own fecal matter and die, Democrats.

In the news today is the following headline: “Breaking: Romney/RNC outraises Obama/DNC by nearly $17 million in May.”

Democrats are getting their asses kicked.  And now it’s all suddenly just so unfair and it’s the end of the world and the end of democracy and America just ended.

If you ever wonder why I have such an angry tone, this stuff is an example: there is such a constant stream of pure lies and distortions coming out of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media propagandists on a daily basis that it is positively unreal and proof of Mark Twain’s famous remark that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.  And I am sick of the lies.

JP Morgan And MF Global Prove That Democrat Regulations DON’T WORK. Democrats Create Disasters And Then Run By Demagoguing Those Disasters.

May 14, 2012

Democrats are saying that 2,320 pages of regulations wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough.  They say they need total dictatorial control over the economy in order to adequately regulate it.

Notice that both Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank (as in, “the Dodd-Frank Act”) are both GONE now???

And yet the monster they created lives on.

Many rules are STILL BEING WRITTEN.  That 2,320 pages will grow and grow and grow without end.

An article written a couple of days ago underscores this and a few other salient facts:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the most sweeping financial law enacted since the Great Depression, is supposed to protect investors and shield the economy from bubbles and speculation. Its promise is hard to judge; many detailed rules are still being drafted. What can be said with confidence is that Dodd-Frank has been a boon for lobbyists.

In that single sentence, we find: 1) Dodd-Frank was a complete lie and resulted in a complete fiasco; 2) the damn thing that is already a monster is growing into an even bigger monster all around us; and 3) Obama and Democrats LOVE lobbyists in spite of their sanctimonious self-righteous hypocritical denials.

We’ve just suffered the disaster of MF Global in which an EXTREMELY CLOSE ALLY AND PARTNER WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION directly led to the collapse and bankruptcy of MF Global and the disappearance of $1.6 BILLION in investor funds.

We’ve just suffered the disaster of JP Morgan – which donated HUGE campaign money to Obama, for the record (see here and here for the proof) – just lost $2 billion.  With those losses reasonably expected to exceed $4.2 BILLION.

Now, speaking of what is “reasonable,” it is “reasonable” to point out that the Democrat rhetoric demonizing George Bush for failing to regulate, etc. was a complete load of hogwash and that the Democrats’ have refuted themselves.  But that’s not the way the Democrat fascist mind works: rather, Democrats are actually arguing that their abject failure to regulate in spite of supermassive regulations requires more and MORE regulation.

There’s just no end to their stupidity.  Or to their crony-capitalist fascism.

Democrats promised that they would end “too big to fail” by preventing the movement toward getting bigger.  They accomplished the EXACT OPPOSITE: Banks are now THIRTY PERCENT BIGGER than when Dodd-Frank passed and they are in fact bigger as a direct consequence of Dodd-Frank as banks responded to the witch hunts by growing big and powerful enough to resist said witch hunts:

Two years after President Barack Obama vowed to eliminate the danger of financial institutions becoming “too big to fail,” the nation’s largest banks are bigger than they were before the credit crisis.

Five banks – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to the Federal Reserve.

Five years earlier, before the financial crisis, the largest banks’ assets amounted to 43 percent of U.S. output. The Big Five today are about twice as large as they were a decade ago relative to the economy, sparking concern that trouble at a major bank would rock the financial system and force the government to step in as it did during the 2008 crunch.

“Market participants believe that nothing has changed, that too-big-to-fail is fully intact,” said Gary Stern, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

That specter is eroding faith in Obama’s pledge that taxpayer-funded bailouts are a thing of the past. It is also exposing him to criticism from Federal Reserve officials, Republicans and Occupy Wall Street supporters, who see the concentration of bank power as a threat to economic stability.

Let’s compare that list to the list of the biggest Obama donors:

Goldman Sachs, check.  Citigroup, check.  Bank of America, check.  And JP Morgan Chase, check check.  Oh, and Wells Fargo, check.

It’s really just astonishing to anybody but someone like me – WHO SAYS ALL THE DAMN TIME THAT BARACK OBAMA IS A GENUINELY EVIL MAN – that Obama rammed a fascist crony capitalist takeover of the banking system through Congress promising to end too big to fail, and yet somehow mysteriously that legislation ended up benefitting the very list of banks that gave Obama more money than ANYBODY.

It’s the exact same damn fascist thing with Obama and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY HE GAVE TO HIS DONORS WITH THE GREEN ENERGY BOONDOGGLE

There’s kind of a trend there.

When a political party promises to regulate and reform to prevent collapses and bubbles and end the too big to fail mindset, and then they do the VERY OPPOSITE thing that they said they’d do, and as a result of their doing the very opposite thing that they promised they say they need more power, and you believe them and vote for them, there is something profoundly wrong with you.

Demon-possessed Democrats (“Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat,” by the way) played this game once in 2008.

It was DEMOCRATS and DEMOCRAT POLICIES that blew up our economy in 2008.  Bill Clinton radically expanded the housing-bubble-creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by dramatically expanding the program that gave housing mortgages to people who could not afford them:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

For the factual record, that was something Bill Clinton blessed George Bush with just before he left office to go along with the Dotcom bubble collapse recession that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth.  Which collapsed on Bush just before the 9/11 disaster that happened because Bill Clinton let in every single terrorist who attacked us and allowed them to get trained, organized and funded completely on his watch.  So thanks for those land mines that were guaranteed to blow up, Slick Willie.

Wicked, depraved, demon-possessed Democrats blame George Bush.  But George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but Democrats thwarted him every single time.  From US News and World Report:

Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I’ve written about this ad nauseum:

For the record, “8,000 billion” is another way of saying $8 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Democrat Party have cost us.

It was Democrats who established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has been Democrats who have controlled the staffing of both agencies for decades. It was Democrats – and particularly it was Barack Obama – who took more campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than ANYONE. It was Democrats who refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when George Bush and later John McCain repeatedly pleaded for such regulation and reform of the out-of-control agencies. It was Democrats like Franklin Raines who were running Fannie and Freddie when all the policies that led us down the road to hell were imposed, just as it was Democrats who were running Fannie and Freddie when the fecal matter started hitting the rotary oscillator.

It was a Democrat who said that everything was fine with Fannie and Freddie less than TWO MONTHS before they completely collapsed:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS, July 14, 2008: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

And I think that anybody who respects what you think is a deluded and deranged dumbass, Mr. Frank.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now in control of 96.5% of all mortgages, for those who don’t think they’re all that important in their role of creating the mortgage meltdown. It was Fannie and Freddie that bundled all the bad mortgages into mortgage-backed securities and then sold the mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors under the illusion that they were guaranteed by the federal government.

Fannie and Freddie were a $5 trillion wasted boondoggle BEFORE things got even worse. They exist only to help liberals and lose money. And there’s no end in sight.

How bad is it???

Just how bad is the news at Fannie/Freddie? On Friday morning, Moody’s downgraded their outstanding preferred stock 5 notches from A1 to Baa3 (a slight gradation above junk) and their Bank Financial Strength Ratings (BSFR) to D+ from B- (one/half notch above D, which is reserved for companies in default). […]

I’ve pointed out which entity was directly behind the collapse of our economy in 2008.  Look who see who failed first and then triggered the catastrophic chain of financial destruction:

But in short, just take a look at the following timeline of our 2008 collapse and see which (Democrat) entity led the nation into implosion:

  • September 7: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.’s $12 trillion mortgage market, effectively nationalizing them. This causes panic because almost every home mortgage lender and Wall Street bank relied on them to facilitate the mortgage market and investors worldwide owned $5.2 trillion of debt securities backed by them.[199][200]
  • September 14: Merrill Lynch is sold to Bank of America amidst fears of a liquidity crisis and Lehman Brothers collapse[201]
  • September 15: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection[202]
  • September 16: Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s downgrade ratings on AIG‘s credit on concerns over continuing losses to mortgage-backed securities, sending the company into fears of insolvency.[203][204] In addition, the Reserve Primary Fund “breaks the buck” leading to a run on the money market funds. Over $140 billion is withdrawn vs. $7 billion the week prior. This leads to problems for the commercial paper market, a key source of funding for corporations, which suddenly could not get funds or had to pay much higher interest rates.[205]
  • September 17: The US Federal Reserve lends $85 billion to American International Group (AIG)to avoid bankruptcy.
  • September 18: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke meet with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout through the purchase of toxic assets. Bernanke tells them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”[206]
  • September 19: Paulson financial rescue plan is unveiled after a volatile week in stock and debt markets.

And I point out the whole process and how it happened to show why the 2008 disaster happened to prove that Fannie and Freddie failing first was no mere coincidence, but in fact the trigger that set off the entire chain reaction of 2008:

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, acting as Government sponsored enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what has allowed toxic instruments that have been sold across the world. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs. He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And of course, they could not pay their debts. Fannie and Freddie basically went bankrupt and were taken over. And they took a whopping share of the biggest financial institutions down with them. Fannie is in the process of devouring nearly 400 billion dollars of bailout money from the American taxpayer. And now – GREAT GOOGLEY MOOGLEYObama is planning to funnel yet another $800 BILLION through the same Fannie and Freddie who already destroyed us once.

And thus you had a financial disaster created by one William Jefferson Clinton and one Democrat Party. And now a second act of economic destruction is being planned by Barack Obama.

The 2008 economic collapse that Democrats were elected to fix was itself created by Democrats who will now continue the very policies that created the disaster in the first place.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now in control of 96.5% of all mortgages due to the corruption and fascist crony capitalism of the Democrat Party which has pretty much been allowed to run amok since 2007 (when they took control of the House and Senate) and which went completely insane when Barack Obama became president.

It was Democrats who blew up the economy with their stupid and demonic policies and it is Democrats who will make the rubble bounce by blowing it up all over again in a collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a walk on a warm sunny beach.

As a postscript, allow me to add that the problem is not and never has been that we don’t have enough regulations: we’ve got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of regulations such that the federal government has no idea how many different regulations they actually have on the books any more.  NO!  Rather the problem is that morality and ethics have disintegrated in America.

Founding father John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  His point was that a free society cannot exist unless morality and religion are cherished and taught for a very good reason: because people who do not have the foundation to self-govern must be forcibly governed by an increasingly totalitarian state.  And that view of John Adams was echoed by every single one of our founding fathers for very good reason.

The Democrat Party and the unjust judges the Democrat Party has imposed on us threw God out of America in in 1947 when they imposed a radical understanding of the Establishment Clause upon America.  In a particularly heinous maneuver, the Supreme Court ONLY considered the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church that had written expressing concern about the removal of religious liberty.  It’s not adequate to say that the Supreme Court took “separation between church and state” in 1947; they DEMANDED that the surrounding context be DENIED altogetherThe result in 1947 was an awful ruling that defied the previous 160 years of Supreme Court decisions and effectively abrogated the Declaration of Independence and the 1st Amendment in doing so.  The Supreme Court further acted on the secular humanist edifice it had artificially constructed for itself in 1962, when the Court threw out prayer in schools and threw the Ten Commandments out in 1980.  The liberal court decreed that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

God forbid that children think about God and morality.  Let’s teach them sodomy instead.

And now we have degenerated to the point in which an Obama-appointed federal judge is saying we should just get rid of the first four commandments that mention God.  Because this moral idiot doesn’t comprehend that the first four commandments commanding reverence for the Creator form the moral foundation for the six commands that ethical laws that have formed the basis of Western Civilization that emerged from the Judeo-Christian worldview.

If you are an older American who knew what this nation used to be like, and you wonder what the hell went so terribly wrong, now you should understand why: we threw God out of America; and in so doing we invited Satan in.  Pretty much every nasty thing, from violent crime, to venereal disease, to premarital sex, to single motherhood and abortion, to illiteracy, to suicide, to drug use, to public corruption, HAS EXPLODED.  We’ve become a country that is so overwhelmed with convicted criminals that it is now beyond impossible to keep them incarcerated and we literally have to let them go as worse criminals keep flooding into the system.

When I graduated from university in 1990 as a business major, I did not receive any classroom instruction on business ethics.  One professor pointed out that they had USED to teach ethics in previous years but had as a matter of policy stopped doing so.  And precisely what would have been the foundation of those “ethics” if we’d been allowed to be taught about “ethics”???  What ethics?  WHOSE ethics?  Based on what ethical system?

Not the Bible, that is for damned sure.  Not when the Supreme Court that inhabits a building whose founders and whose betters engraved images of Moses and the Ten Commandments upon them spurns the entire history of this great nation and replaces it with legally-imposed godlessness.

So the abortion society of death worship that Democrats created spirals wildly out of control.  And the amoral and irreligious people now therefore need mountains of regulations as they become more and more and more blatantly depraved and predatory.

And such a people must be controlled with more and more force.

Liberals frequently compare conservatives to some kind of intolerant Taliban; but THEY’RE the Taliban.  They are a radical secular humanist cult that has been increasingly rabidly determined to impose their agenda on this nation for the last 100 years.

AP-Reported FACT: U.S. Economy The Worst Since The LAST Time We Let A Socialist Run It

July 11, 2011

The Los Angeles Times print edition ran this story on July 2 under the considerably more Marxist headline, “Wealthy benefit from recovery as workers struggle“:

U.S. Recovery’s 2-Year Anniversary Arrives With Little To Celebrate
First Posted: 07/ 1/11 05:33 PM ET Updated: 07/ 1/11 05:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — This is one anniversary few feel like celebrating.

Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.

After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven’t kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy’s meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest.

Workers’ wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable — about 64 percent through boom and bust alike.

[…]

But if the Great Recession is long gone from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, it lingers on Main Street:

Unemployment has never been so high — 9.1 percent — this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.

The average worker’s hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.

The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then.

[…]

Hard times have made Americans more dependent than ever on social programs, which accounted for a record 18 percent of personal income in the last three months of 2010 before coming down a bit this year. Almost 45 million Americans are on food stamps, another record.

[…]

Because the labor market remains so weak, most workers can’t demand bigger raises or look for better jobs.

“In an economic cycle that is turning up, a labor market that is healthy and vibrant, you’d see a large number of people quitting their jobs,” says Gluskin Sheff economist Rosenberg. “They quit because the grass is greener somewhere else.”

Instead, workers are toughing it out, thankful they have jobs at all. Just 1.7 million workers have quit their job each month this year, down from 2.8 million a month in 2007.

The toll of all this shows in consumer confidence, a measure of how good people feel about the economy. According to the Conference Board’s index, it’s at 58.5. Healthy is more like 90. By this point after the past three recessions, it was an average of 87.

How gloomy are Americans? A USA Today/Gallup poll eight weeks ago found that 55 percent think the recession continues, even if the experts say it’s been over for two years. That includes the 29 percent who go even further — they say it feels more like a depression.

Allow me to start with the second paragraph in the story:

“Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.”

The weakest and most lopsided of any recovery since the 1930s, you say???

WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN THE 1930s?  WHICH PARTY DOMINATED BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN THE 1930s?

And next let me ask you, “Are there any similarities between socialist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and socialist Democrat Barack Hussein Obama???  And the answer is, “HELL YES THERE ARE!!!”:

Which is to say, “This is the worst the U.S. economy has ever been since the LAST time we had a socialist just like FDR – and the mainstream media proudly hailed Obama as FDR and Obama’s as a NEW “New Deal.”

But here’s the truth:

FDR prolonged — not ended — great depression

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. ”We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

[…]

”The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. ”Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

And of course all the “experts” the mainstream media love to trot out have all bought hook, line and sinker the notion that capitalism is something to be loathed and feared.  So they demand that America pursue asinine government stimulus policies that fail even by the “experts'” own standards, and then these same “experts” proceed to argue that the economy failing to recover somehow is proof that more of the same thing that already failed is necessary.

These “experts” whom the mainstream media give a loud microphone to to espouse their socialist views are pathologically incapable of seeing this connection between socialist policies and an economy in the doldrums.  Every bit of negative economic news is invariably “unexpected” (liberals favorite adjective to wave a hand at bad economic developments whenever a Democrat president is in charge), because these “experts” cannot separate the inevitable results of their ideology from their terribly failed ideology.  There has to be a disconnect, or more commonly, a scapegoat.

I can simply re-cite my conclusion from a previous article to find a particularly laughable example of this phenomena:

I think of the Soviet Union, which literally blamed the total failure of their entire political philosophy and the ruinous policies that philosophy entailed by claiming that their agricultural output had been adversely affected due to 72 years of bad weather.  And the Soviet Union has gone the way of the Dodo bird for that very reason.

Is America under Obama the next Dodo bird to fall apart while we’re assured that everything is fine while some suitable scapegoat bears the blame for every failure that can’t be ignored???

It couldn’t be the fact that socialism is nothing more than state-planned economic failure.  It had to be something else, ANYTHING else.

The Big Brother from the novel 1984 had Emmanuel Goldstein.  The Big Brother who is now occupying our White House has George W. Bush.

The next obvious question to ask and answer is, “Why are the wealthy benefitting while the workers struggle?”

The answer is twofold: 1) because when you attack the employers, the first thing to go is the employees and 2) because that’s exactly how crony capitalism works.

There is a magnificent book entitled, New Deal Or Raw Deal?  How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, which should be required reading.  Burton Folsom Jr. points out that when FDR structured his many policies and regulations that strangled economic growth, he did so in such a way that favored the big crony capitalist corporations at the expense of the smaller businesses that could no longer compete given the costly regulatory requirements.  The smaller businesses were forced out of the market while the big businesses protected themselves with insider deals based on access to and influence with the government that only they could afford.  And there is no question whatsoever that – even as FDR employed the class warfare of socialism – the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.  Income tax revenues plunged as the wealthy sheltered their wealth from the high tax rates and the poor paid an increasingly high overall percentage of tax revenues via excise taxes.  Regulations mandating higher pay for workers priced those workers right out of their jobs.  Folsom provides the official data to back it up.

Check out this fact from page 127 of New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1929, prior to FDR demonizing the rich, income taxes accounted for 38% of total revenue collected, and corporate income taxes accounted for 43%.  Excise taxes which burdened the poor only counted for 19% of revenues.  By 1938, the rich and the corporations had protected themselves from FDR’s demagogic tax policies (but the poor couldn’t), such that the only 24% was collected in income taxes (versus 38%) and only 29% from corporate income taxes (versus 43%).  Meanwhile the poor-punishing excise taxes (e.g. gasoline tax) soared from 19% to 47% of the total taxes collected.  Meanwhile, when income taxes were kept low, the wealthy invariably paid FAR MORE in the total tax revenue as they put their money out to invest in and expand the economy in pursuit of the profits.  And they created millions of jobs in doing so.

And guess what?  Regulations mandating higher wages are STILL killing jobs now that Obama is doing it.

And the exact same mindset is yielding the exact same results ALL OVER AGAIN.  Obama has put the fear of God (actually the fear of the Soviet-style STATE) into the wealthy and the corporations.  They keep hearing Obama demagogue them, and they keep sheltering their money.  And they will CONTINUE to keep doing that until the threat of Obama is gone.  Just like they did with FDR.

Here we are today, with “the New FDR,” Barack Obama.  Who is the top dog on Obama’s economic team?  Why lo and behold, it is none other than GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, crony capitalist extraordinaire whose big corporation has REPEATEDLY benefitted from a cozy insider relationship with big government.  And consider how Obama literally took big auto makers GM and Chrysler away from their legitimate shareholders and gave them to big unions.

Regarding “crony capitalism,” I made a sweeping statement in a previous article:

That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left.  If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations. But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS.  They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda.  They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.

And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.

The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America.  Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example.  What did she say of the oil companies?

“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”

THAT’S what Hitler did, too.  Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has now REPEATEDLY done.

And then consider how willing Maxine Waters used “crony capitalism” (which is the essence of developing fascism) to directly personally benefit even as she shaped the banking industry.

The Democrat party is the party of socialism.  It is the party of Marxism.  It is the party of fascism.

I stand by that sweeping statement.  People need to realize that “Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST German Workers Party,” and that both Nazi socialism and Soviet socialism were big government socialist tyrannies that failed their people.  As to our own experiment with socialism here in the USA, I point out in an article that explains how “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies led us into economic implosion in spite of warnings for YEARS prior to the 2008 economic collapse:

But rigid opposition from Democrats – especially Democrats like Senator Barack Obamawho took more campaign money from Fannie and Freddie and dirty crony capitalism outfits like corrupt Lehman Bros. than ANYONE in his short Senate stint – prevented any “hope and change” of necessary reform from saving the US economy.

The timeline is clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were giant behemoths that began to stagger under their own corrupt weight, as even the New York Times pointed out:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

And it was FANNIE and FREDDIE that collapsed FIRST before ANY of the private investment banks, which collapsed as a result of having purchased the very mortgaged backed securities that the Government Sponsored Enterprises SOLD THEM.  It wasn’t until Fannie and Freddie collapsed that investors began to look with horror at all the junk that these GSE boondoggles had been pimping.

The man who predicted the collapse in 1999 wrote a follow-up article titled, “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”  It really should have read, “Blame DEMOCRATS.”  Because they were crawling all over these GSEs that they had themselves created like the cockroaches they are.  But Wallison is nonpartisan

Barack and Michelle Obama have a documented personal history of crony capitalism:

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

I also pointed out that when you attacked employers, the ones who would be hit the most and the hardest would be EMPLOYEES.

Take a look at what’s happening to small businesses, which create at least half of all the jobs in America, under Obama.  How about the fewest new business startups since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking it:

Through the 12 months ended in March of last year, 505,473 new businesses started up in the U.S., according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s the weakest growth since the bureau started tracking the data in the early 1990s. It’s down sharply from the record 667,341 new businesses added in the 12 months that ended in March 2006.

And we can tie this right back to crony capitalism, as Obama has created a system in which larger businesses are protected against the threat of competition from smaller businesses:

Many times large corporations will even lobby for more regulations  for their  own industry because they know that they can handle all of the  rules and  paperwork far easier than their smaller competitors can.   After all, a  large corporation with an accounting department can easily  handle filling out a  few thousand more forms, but for a small business  with only a handful  of employees that kind of paperwork is a major  logistical nightmare.

When it comes to hiring new employees, the federal government has  made the  process so complicated and so expensive for small businesses  that it is  hardly worth it anymore.  Things have gotten so bad that more  small  businesses than ever are only hiring part-time workers or  independent  contractors.

So what we actually have now is a situation where small businesses  have lots of incentives not to hire more workers, and if they really do need some extra help the rules make it much more profitable to do  whatever you can to keep from bringing people on as full-time   employees.

And who do all these rules and regulations hurt the most but the very people Democrats cynically and deceitfully claim they are trying to help?  Meanwhile, who does it help the most but the crony capitalist corporations who DON’T do most of the hiring in America who can profit from Obama’s war on business that results in the destruction of their small business competition.

A recent report by the National Federation of Independent Business points out that small businesses are planning to SHRINK rather than EXPAND their payrolls under Obama.  From the New York Times:

A Slowdown for Small Businesses
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: June 14, 2011

In the latest sign that the economic recovery may have lost whatever modest oomph it had, more small businesses say that they are planning to shrink their payrolls than say they want to expand them.

That is according to a new report released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group that regularly surveys its membership of small businesses across America.

The federation’s report for May showed the worst hiring prospects in eight months. The finding provides a glimpse into the pessimism of the nation’s small firms as they put together their budgets for the coming season, and depicts a more gloomy outlook than other recent (if equally lackluster) economic indicators because this one is forward-looking.

While big companies are buoyed by record profits, many small businesses, which employ half of the country’s private sector workers, are still struggling to break even. And if the nation’s small companies plan to further delay hiring — or, worse, return to laying off workers, as they now hint they might — there is little hope that the nation’s 14 million idle workers will find gainful employment soon.

“Never in the 37-year history of our company have we seen anything at all like this,” said Frank W. Goodnight, president of Diversified Graphics, a publishing company in Salisbury, N.C. He says there is “no chance” he will hire more workers in the months ahead.

“We’re being squeezed on all sides,” he says.

So let me ask again the question that the Los Angeles Times phrased: “Why are the wealthy benefitting from the ‘recovery’ as workers struggle?

And the answer is simple: because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are socialist who have destroyed the engine that creates the jobs that workers depend upon to flourish.

An interesting fact is that businesses are now forced to spend $1.7 TRILLION a year in regulatory compliance costs.  That is a massive hidden tax on their viability; it exceeds the overt income taxes businesses have to pay, and it most certainly exceeds their profits.  And right now Obama is attacking them via the Dodd-Frank regulatory legislation, via the EPA, via OSHA, via ObamaCare and via the ridiculous actions of the NLRB in addition to their tax burden.  Just to name a few.  The result is businesses terrified to expand and further place their necks under Obama’s axe blade.

Meanwhile, Obama’s socialist policies have not only devastated the worker by destroying his jobs, but they’ve ruined America on numerous other levels, too.  Take the housing crisis – which was THE cause of the economic implosion of 2008.  Did Obama make it better?  Well, here’s a headline for you from CNBC: “US Housing Crisis Is Now Worse Than Great Depression.”  Which is to say that Democrats – who first created the housing crisis by refusing to allow the regulation of their pet socialist wealth redistribution agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – took something awful and turned it into an American Dream-massacring nightmare.

The latest job figures simply further document my point: Obama is destroying America job by job.  Not only did the unemployment rate go up to 9.2% (Obama promised the American people that the unemployment rate would be 7.1% by now if he got his massive government-spending stimulus); not only were the previous two month figures adjusted DOWNWARD by some 45,000 jobs; not only have a third of the unemployed been unemployed for at least a YEAR with fully half of the unemployed having been unemployed for over six months (which is unprecedented); not only did the economy create an incredibly dismal 18,000 jobs (versus the 100,000 the economists naively expected); but a quarter million more people simply walked away from the workforce entirely – abandoning any hope that Obama will do anything more than crush their hopes of finding a job.

Republicans Care About Children; Democrats Care About Teachers’ Union Boondoggle

June 29, 2011

A tale of two narratives:

Waiting for Superman:

Waiting for the Teachers’ Union
By Joel Klein, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education
Posted: September 24, 2010 04:52 PM

If you do one thing this weekend, go see Davis Guggenheim’s latest documentary, “Waiting for ‘Superman’ “, which opens in theaters across the country today. The film, which has been met with well-deserved critical acclaim, paints a blunt and at times heartbreaking picture of the state of public education in America, told through the stories of families fighting to get their children into safe, high-performing schools.

First, it’s a terrific film.  But more importantly, it has helped catapult the debate on education reform to the national stage.

It’s not surprising that the film is making many people uncomfortable. The truth is harsh. It’s easier to turn away than to watch a crying mom clutch a losing lottery ticket that just cost her child a spot at a top-performing charter school.

What is surprising is that some — including the teachers’ unions — are railing against the film, dismissing it as anti-teacher and pro-charter school propaganda.

‘Superman’ is not anti-teacher; nor does it suggest that charter schools are the answer.  Teachers are the heroes of any education success story, and ‘Superman’ recognizes that. It also recognizes that there are good charters schools and bad charters schools. But it demonstrates that charters are finally providing families in traditionally disadvantaged communities with more choices — something affluent families have always had — thus increasing the chances for better outcomes. And the most successful charters, like the Harlem Children’s Zone schools that are run by Geoff Canada, who stars in the film, or the KIPP schools featured in it, are proving that success doesn’t depend upon where you come from, or the color of your skin, or how much money your family has — because they are getting real results in the poorest communities.

For example, this year, at the Harlem Success Academy, a charter school in New York City, 88 percent of the students passed the state’s reading test and 95 percent passed the math test, while comparable schools have pass rates of 35 percent in reading and 45 percent in math. In fact, Success performed at the same level as the very top gifted and talented schools in the City, all of which have demanding admissions requirements, while Success selects by lottery from primarily African-American and Latino students, three quarters of whom are living in poverty.

So why are they able to get better results? The number one reason is because they are not bound by legions of micro-managing regulations, including those contained in today’s typical teachers’ union contract.

Free from these rules, charter schools in New York can treat their teachers like professionals and reward them for excellence. They embrace an accountability system based on merit.  They understand that, like any other profession, all teachers are not created equal. And, they value the future of the kids above the future of the adults.  Which means if you are teaching in one of Geoff Canada’s schools, and your kids keep failing, you’re out.

It’s been nearly 30 years since President Reagan presented “A Nation at Risk.” In the meantime, our nation has almost doubled its spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) on K-12 public education, but our gains have been negligible. And, while America’s students are in a ditch, the rest of the world is plowing forward. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development administers English, math and science tests to 13 year olds in its 30 member countries. On the most recent exams, the United States was in the bottom third in all three, and trending in the wrong direction in each one. And, where we once had the highest percentage of high school and college graduates among these 30 countries, today we’re toward the bottom for high school graduates and in the middle for college graduates.

We can’t keep ignoring this problem or thinking it’ll get fixed simply by throwing money at it.

Public education is badly failing far too many of our kids and, ultimately, our nation. We must, as Superman does, talk honestly about this uncomfortable fact and why it persists. And that discussion can only begin in earnest if we are prepared to acknowledge what the iconic teachers’ union head Albert Shanker told us almost two decades ago: “As long as there are no consequences if kids or adults don’t perform, as long as the discussion is not about education and student outcomes, then we’re playing a game as to who has the power.” Unfortunately, things haven’t changed much since then.

Only recently, for example, the General Counsel of the NEA, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, said:

Why is the NEA an effective advocate? Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

I am not naïve enough to think that a movie can change the world. But “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” does shine a much-needed spotlight on the status quo and the people who benefit from and defend it.

And it reminds us all that our job is to give voice to the voiceless and the powerless kids that are currently being denied the education they need and deserve. Because, let’s face it — they can’t afford union dues.

If you watch this movie and you AREN’T a KoolAid-drinking ideologue, you will be enraged at what the teachers’ unions are doing to our children.

It was featured on Oprah (here and here).  It was utterly devastating to watch as Michelle Rhee stood up for children and said:

“[The problem is terminal right now] because it is incredibly serious.  Children’s lives are hanging in the balance, and we are making all the wrong decisions right now.  Let me give you an example: people say to me all the time, ‘Oh, Chancellor Rhee, you’re so mean; you’re so harsh.  You know, if there is an ineffective teacher, don’t you believe that that person should be given the opportunity, give them some time, give them the resources to professionally develop them.  But I look at this from the vantage point of being a mother, too, because I have two young children.  I can tell you that if I showed up for school on day one and the principal said, ‘Welcome to Olivia’s class, here’s her teacher.  Guess what?  She’s not so good.  But we’re going to give her this year to see if she can get better, and Olivia and her classmates may not learn how to read this year, but we think that’s the right thing to do for this adult.’  There is no way I would put up with that.”

And of course she is out of a job.  And liberals say, “How DARE she talk like that!  She should be dragged into the street and killed.”

Democrats are in an unholy alliance with the teachers’ unions.  And teachers’ unions are in an unholy alliance with bad teachers, because they (and not the children) belong to the unions and pay union dues and are part of the system that funds Democrats so that Democrats can stay in office and reward the teachers’ unions.

Among other relevant facts, more than 95% of teachers’ unions contributions goes to Democrats, who then in turn protect and extend teachers’ unions.  Shennanigans in which teachers’ UNION representatives are paid by the schools rather than by the unions are common.  And teachers are routinely forced to contribute to Democrat Party candidates whether they want to or not.

Compare that to this:

Wisconsin’s Walker Signs Historic School Choice Bill
Monday, 27 Jun 2011 04:17 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker today signed into law the largest expansion to the state’s school choice programs in history. The expansion will benefit thousands of children from the state’s low- and middle-income families and sends a strong signal to the nation that educational equality is possible with strong leadership from state legislators and executives.

The American Federation for Children, which—along with School Choice Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Council of Religious & Independent Schools, Hispanics for School Choice, and Democrats for Education Reform—has invested significantly in outreach and advocacy efforts designed to expand school choice in the Badger State, praised the passage of the landmark school choice program expansions.

In approving the state budget, Walker enacted a significant expansion of the popular Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The state’s 2011-2013 biennial budget contains language that increases income eligibility for the program and removes the cap on the number of participants. The budget also allows children in Milwaukee to attend the private schools of their parents’ choice—anywhere in Wisconsin.

In addition, the budget creates a new choice program—similar to the one in Milwaukee—for Racine. AFC polling indicates strong, bipartisan support for the creation of this new program. Governor Walker first publicly announced his intention to pursue the expansion to Racine during an address to the American Federation for Children’s National Policy Summit in May 2011.

“Today is a monumental day for children in Milwaukee, Racine, and the State of Wisconsin,” said AFC Chairman Betsy DeVos. “Governor Walker and state legislators pledged to put Wisconsin’s children first, and today that important pledge has become law. We encourage governors and state legislators across the nation to be equally bold in fighting for the creation and expansion of school choice programs.”

In addition to praising Governor Scott Walker’s leadership, AFC today hailed the courage of Senator Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Representative Robin Vos (R-Burlington), Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). AFC also praised Representative Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee) for introducing the successful “Once In, Always In” provision that will protect students enrolled in both the Milwaukee and Racine Parental Choice Programs.

You start to feel like there needs to be a Moses who says, “Let my children go.”  Democrats certainly won’t.  They will do everything they can to force every parent to keep their child(ren) in government schools no matter how badly those schools are failing.

Republicans love children and despise unions; Democrats love unions and despise children.  Which also explains why they’ve already murdered more than 53 million of them.

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

April 25, 2011

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Got Oil? Pictures, Images and Photos

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word “Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist WorkersBecause that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].

[…]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[…]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[…]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[…]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and “collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year – more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “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,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And – disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home – the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.