Posts Tagged ‘Carter’

Democrats Want The Obama Road To Economic Implosion; I Want A Reagan Recovery

January 31, 2012

The following article does a great job in ramming home just how miserable Obama has been for the economy versus how wonderful Reagan was for the country.

In fact, the information contained probably explains why Reagan is considered “the greatest president in American history” and Obama is “the most polarizing president in American history” (both as measured by Gallup).

So do you want to recover or do you want another Obama term of abject failure?

The $1.2 Tril Gap: Obama’s Subpar Recovery Continues
Posted 06:50 PM ET

 

Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama’s policies aren’t helping the country get stronger. Rather, they’re smothering what should have been a solid recovery.

Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.

To get a better sense of how bad Obama’s recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.

By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.

Had Obama’s recovery been as powerful as Reagan’s, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.

And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.

So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we’re just now getting back on our feet.

Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.

Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).

But even that didn’t stop a rip-roaring comeback.

Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008.”

Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.

So what’s different? The presidents’ policies.

Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.

Obama’s approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan’s approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations “has never worked” to spur growth.

Obama might think the U.S. is “getting stronger,” as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.

It strikes even me as strange to conclude one article by producing the opening paragraphs of another, but I wrote this about what Ronald Reagan accomplished a couple of years ago:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

And the only thing that could truly destroy the fruit of Reagan’s policies was the coming of another Jimmy Carter.

And of course that’s exactly what we got in this turd:

Obama obviously has no solution to anything but trying to get himself re-elected so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America into a failed socialist banana republic.

Advertisements

Sheer Moral Idiocy Of Obama Administration On Vivid Display In Egypt Crisis

February 4, 2011

Coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, via the Associated Press:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

Anyone who has watched so much as five minutes of the completely out-of-control rioting and beatings in Egypt can only conclude that this woman and the administration she represents doesn’t have so much as the faintest inkling of a clue.

Coming from Vice President Joe Biden, via The Hill:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

The same day Biden said the above, “president for life” Hosni Mubarak shut down the internet throughout Egypt.  Which was a pretty darned dictatorish thing for him to do.  Yesterday, paid pro-Mubarak thugs started bashing headsVery dictatorish of him.

Coming from President Barack Obama, via the Los Angeles Times:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

I mean, really, dude?  You actually thought that was a good idea???  I mean, that’s like supporting a role for groups such as the Nazis in a “reformed” German government.  That’s kind of like supporting the role of the Ku Klux Klan in a “reformed” Confederate government.  And, if anything, the qualifier, “But only if they promise to behave” is even more breathtakingly stupid. 

Let’s see, what was the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto again?

  • Allah is our objective.
  • The prophet is our leader.
  • Qur’an is our law.
  • Jihad is our way.
  • Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Oh, yeah.  Surely we can work with these guys.  We can have peace in our time dealing with them.

Mainstream media figures are actually giving Obama “credit” for the riots, burnings, beatings and murders in Egypt, saying it flowed from his 2009 speech in Cairo, if you can believe it.  When you are true moral idiots, you see good things as bad and you see bad things as good. 

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for that 2009 speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Obama talked about “the passion and dignity” of the Egyptian people as they demonstrated.  Obama told the protesting mob, “We hear your voices.”  Hours later of course, that same mob displayed its passion and dignity by turning violent.

The ironic thing about that – in addition to how totally clueless Obama revealed himself to be – is how President Obama never once spoke of the “passion and dignity” of American Tea Party protestors as they engaged in countless peaceful protests across the USA.  Nor has he ever YET bothered to hear their voices.  It literally seems that to garner Obama’s approval, a crowd has to be a violent foreign Muslim mob.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

I have said earlier, and repeat here, my Bible-based belief that – for all of Obama’s stunning incompetence and incoherence – I believe that Egypt somehow will ultimately not turn into a full-fledged member of the radical jihadist crazy-for-death Muslim nations that will launch a full-scale genocidal war against nuclear-armed Israel.  That said, I am not giving Obama any credit whatsoever for the fact that Egypt will not degenerate into jihadist radicalism.  That issue was settled back in 1979, when Anwar Sadat literally sacrificed his life for peace with Israel.

Obama has tried to represent himself as having a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment; but in reality it is far more like Jimmy Carter’s incredibly stupid act of taking Iran away from the pro-American Shah and giving it to the virulently anti-American Ayatollahs.

Why Did Our Economy Melt Down In 2008? (Email This To Your Friends)

October 25, 2010

Note: I did not write the following; I am only passing it along.  I hope you read it and then pass it along as well.

Remember the LONG-TERM Causes of the Financial Sector Meltdown (an email pre-formatted for sending)
FreedomKeys.com ^ | 20101010 | various
Posted on 10/23/2010 12:49:32 PM PDT by FreeKeys

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
by novelist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat
_________
.. This [financial crisis] was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
..
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.  (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.  It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) …
..
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
..
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. …
..
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?  Do you even know what honesty means?
..
[Was] getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? …
..
… tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis.  You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
..
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
..
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
– Novelist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, on October 5, 2008,HERE
..
.. The Financial Sector Meltdown ..
1.  Almost all of the financial problems we see today are based on bad mortgage lending.  That would be lending money to people to buy homes who didn’t qualify for a loan.
..
2.  The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the “Community Reinvestment Act” [first foisted upon the country under Jimmy Carter].  This law was then used by “activists” and “community organizers” …  to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans … millions of them.
..
3.  Now we see what happens when political “wisdom” supplants good loan underwriting.  When private financial institutions are virtually forced to make loans to people with a bad credit and job history … this is what you get.  Enjoy it. — Neal Boortz, here ..


.
Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
..
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
..
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market.
.. — Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg News, here ..

 


.. Obama choice helped Fannie block oversight
National security adviser tied to discrediting of probe ..
By Jim McElhatton, The Washington Times,October 13, 2010 here
..
UNDER SCRUTINY: Thomas E. Donilon worked as a registered lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005.
..
Years before Fannie Mae foundered amid a massive accounting scandal, President Obama’s choice for national security adviser oversaw an office inside the mortgage giant that orchestrated a negative publicity blitz to fight attempts by Congress to increase government oversight, records show.
..
Thomas E. Donilon, who won the job as national security adviser this month, worked as a registered lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005 at a time the company’s officials insisted finances were sound. He also earned more than $1.8 million in bonuses [from Frannie Mae] before the government took over the troubled company in the wake of an accounting scandal.
..
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mr. Obama, who railed against lobbyists on the campaign trail, hailed Mr. Donilon’s appointment last week, but made no mention of his time as a registered lobbyist.st wee
..

 


..
Democrats and some [big-government] Republicans opposed reform in part because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie has spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998 and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.
..
The principal recipient of Fannie Mae’s largesse was a Democrat, Sen. Chris Dodd (D, CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. No. 2 was another Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama (D, IL).
..
Mr. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide’s political action committee and its employees, and the recipient of a home loan from Countrywide at well below market rates.  The No. 1 senator on Countrywide’s list? Barack Obama. Check it out here:  http://tinyurl.com/4h9955
..

 


..
“Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
..
“The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.” — Dr. Thomas Sowell, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Stanford University, HERE
..

 


..
When the Bush administration tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie from continuing to engage in risky practices, guess who stepped in to block their efforts? Democratic senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and — are you ready? — Barack Obama.
..
Meanwhile, guess who were the top four recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie between 1988 and 2008?
..
Senators Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and — still ready? — Barack Obama.
..
A coincidence, I tell you — just a coincidence.
..
More mere coincidences: Franklin Raines — a former Carter- and Clinton-administration official and former head of Fannie Mae, now under investigation for cooking its books — had a lot of powerful people in Congress beholden to his agency. Here is a list of his campaign-contribution recipients. Meanwhile, Democratic honcho Jim Johnson, another former Fannie Mae CEO, has been an economic adviser to and major fundraiser for Barack Obama, and even ran his vice-presidential search committee until growing scandals over his Fannie management forced him to step down in July. – Robert Bidinotto, here ..

 


..
On May 25, 2006, Sen. John McCain spoke forcefully on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  He said on the floor of the Senate:
..
“Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
..
“The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
..
” The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
..
“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
..
“I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
..
“I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”
..
It died at the hands of the DEMOCRATS —
HERE’s a video clip showing their anger.
..

 


..
“Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure.The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” — Dr. Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, HERE
..

 


..
“Barack Obama wasn’t just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky ‘affirmative action’ loans. … [The CRA] gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks … ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. … Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining.  ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis. Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort.” — IBD Editorials
..
“The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering [“community organizer”] efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding [via CAC and Woods Fund] for her efforts.” — Stanley Kurtz, “BARACK’S ‘ORGAANIZER’ BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES”HERE
.

 


.
Bloomberg News has an excellent recap of
the history of the financial meltdown:.HERE.
.

 


 

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama
not shown: Bill Clinton


..

 


“Scratch the surface of an endemic problem — famine, illness, poverty —  and you invariably find a politician at the source.” —  Simon Carr

 


“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” — Ayn Rand

 


“I think that we all need to consider the possibility … just the possibility … that Obama is engaged in a conscious effort to destroy our free market economy so that he can build a government-controlled socialist party on the rubble.” — Neal Boortz, here
[Conscious effort or not, we have an emergency on our hands.]

 

Obama Administration Continues To Set Records In Incompetence

November 10, 2009

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

Behind Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty appalling stuff from a pretty pathetic leader.

Media’s Bias, Dishonesty Re: Reagan Vs. Obama Unemployment Bodes Ill For America

October 4, 2009

Our founding fathers believed a free and independent press – which would serve as a watchdog protecting the nation from the lies, corruption, mismanagement, and demagoguery of politicians – would be utterly essential for a functioning democracy.

It would be nice if we had one.

The fact is that going back decades, the media have become anything but either “independent” or a “watchdog.”  Rather than guarding and protecting the truth, they have become the “lapdogs” of the left, licking the faces of Democrats and turning viciously on Republicans, without regard to the truth or the facts.

A study comparing the media’s response to IDENTICAL job loss numbers between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama pointedly demonstrate the deceit and hypocrisy of the mainstream media.  In short, Reagan was given negative coverage 91% of the time, whereas Obama received negative coverage 7% of the time.  For some reason, the same media that has repeatedly claimed that Obama “inhereited” the recession could never bring themselves to make a similar claim about Reagan’s inheritance via Jimmy Carter.

There are some useful charts and videos on the Businessandmedia site which hosts this article.  I cite the article here merely to preserve the record.  My discussion of the ramifications of the article will follow.

Networks Flip Flop On Jobs

Identical Unemployment Numbers ‘Good’ News for Obama, But ‘All’ Bad under Reagan.

Full Report

A study from the Business & Media Institute

By Julia A. Seymour

Executive Summary
PDF Version


These are tough times. More than 3 million people have lost their jobs just since February 2009 and consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in September. The unemployment rate has spiked from 8.1 percent to 9.7 percent in the first seven months of Barack Obama’s presidency and is expected to climb even higher.

Despite that grim news, the major news networks have spun their unemployment reports into “good news” and presented Obama positively. Journalists tried hard to present rising job losses in the best possible light.

ABC’s Charles Gibson called the loss of 539,000 jobs in April a “marked improvement” May 8, 2009, because fewer jobs were lost than in March. In June 2009, Gibson was talking again about “hopeful” signs in the job numbers as more Americans were out of work.

But flashback 27 years ago to 1982, the unemployment rate was in roughly the same range as it was in 2009. Yet, network reporters consistently presented the U.S. economy under President Ronald Reagan as the “worst of times” by showing people living out of their trucks under a bridge and collecting free food at a food bank.

CBS reporter Ray Brady told a “tale of two cities” on June 4, 1982. He found the “worst of times” in Waterloo, Iowa, where the unemployment rate was the highest in the nation: 25.4 percent. That was nearly 16 percentage points higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent. He contrasted Waterloo’s joblessness with 4.6 percent unemployment in Sioux Falls, S.D. where things were “close to” the best of times.

Brady’s report addressed two very different employment situations, but most 1982 reports focused heavily on places where “desperation has turned to hopelessness.” The unemployment rate under Obama and Reagan was nearly identical, yet they received almost exactly opposite treatment from ABC, CBS and NBC reports. Reagan was mentioned negatively in reports 13 times more often than Obama.

While in Obama’s case, reporters found bright spots – like 25 police recruits’ jobs being “saved” by the stimulus package – during Reagan’s term, journalists found tragedy everywhere. They interviewed a battered wife, a family that had run out of food and many unemployed people. One NBC anchor even warned that suicide and murder rates increase in such hard times.

Although there was a difference between the two presidents in how long they had been in office, the spin was still significant. Unemployment numbers rose similarly under both Reagan and Obama, but journalists continued a long-standing trend of spinning the numbers.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.  BMI found that network reports were 13 times more negative in their treatment of Reagan than Obama.  In fact, 91 percent of stories (20 out of 22) mentioning Reagan’s administration portrayed it negatively – while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Obama was mentioned positively 87 percent of the time (13 out of 15). There was not a single positive mention of the Reagan White House.

Blame for ‘Wicked’ Reagan, but Praise for Obama’s ‘Important’ Stimulus

In 1982, network reports showed desperation, sadness and tragedy as a result of rising joblessness. NBC pictured lines of people waiting outside a food bank and interviewed crisis counselors in Seattle on May 7.

“More callers talk of despair and even suicide,” Don Oliver reported that night, before interviewing Jim and Pam Smalls. Oliver called them “victims of unemployment depression and anger,” because Pam had to seek help from a battered woman’s shelter.

Another network showed people living under a highway overpass out of their trucks because they couldn’t find work. But under Obama the networks found a man “doing backflips” when he was asked to return to work at a Minnesota window company and another man who was thrilled to be hired by a hamburger stand in Arizona.

Network reports on unemployment were mirror opposites. They made Reagan look bad in a huge majority of stories and conversely made Obama look good.

Broadcasts journalists tied “rising” unemployment to Reagan in 1982 by mentioning him in 71 percent of stories (22 of 31), but linked Obama to the economy slightly more than half as often in 2009 – only 40 percent of the time (14 of 35).

When the respective presidents were mentioned, political attacks on the Reagan administration over job losses were commonplace in the 1982 network coverage. Union leaders, Democratic politicians and the unemployed were all quoted blasting Reagan for his economic policies.

NBC’s Irving R. Levine found a soon-to-be unemployed textile worker who “blames President Reagan” for his situation on March 5, 1982. That worker, Gene Biffle, told NBC, “When he went in there he said it, he was gonna get jobs and help the economy, but don’t look like he’s doing too much about that.”Following Levine’s segment, anchor Roger Mudd took Reagan to task himself by responding to statements from the administration:

“Spokesmen for the Reagan White House are coming to dread each month’s unemployment numbers because it gets harder and harder for them to explain. Economic Adviser Weidenbaum says today the figures may mean the economy may be bottoming out. Communications Director Gergen says that while unemployment may get worse, the recession seems to be bottoming out. Meanwhile, more and more people are getting bottomed out.”

In August 1982, Sam Donaldson of ABC highlighted the “partisan savagery” of Congressional Democrats, including Rep. Parren Mitchell’s, D-Md., claim that Reagan was pursuing “sadistic fiscal policies.”

The dark and gloomy tone of 1982 reports was a near polar opposite of the tenor of 2009 unemployment stories.

In 2009, the networks praised Obama for merely trying to stop rising unemployment – even when he wasn’t succeeding. And month after month reporters tried to find the “good news” or signs of a turnaround.

All three nightly newscasts mentioned Obama favorably March 6, 2009, even though 651,000 jobs had been lost in February and unemployment had jumped half a percentage point to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent. And all three of those broadcasts emphasized a mere 25 jobs “saved” by the stimulus package.

NBC’s Chuck Todd gave Obama credit that night saying, “For these 25 new police officers here in Columbus, Ohio, the president’s stimulus plan didn’t create these jobs, it saved them. Without the money these folks would be looking for a new line of work.”

CBS Anchor Katie Couric revealed her faith in Obama’s stimulus plan that night as well saying, “I know the government is going to be creating jobs, as we’ve mentioned, through this stimulus package.”

After the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced May 8 that more than a half million jobs were lost in April, another CBS anchor, Maggie Rodriguez, looked for a ray of sunshine saying, “There is new hope the sun may be starting to peek through those economic storm clouds tonight,” before delivering the news that unemployment had jumped .4 percent to 8.9 percent nationally.

Rodriguez’ optimism led into Anthony Mason’s report. Mason quoted Obama and emphasized his call for education as the solution to joblessness and request that states allow people to maintain unemployment benefits while going back to school.

Identical Unemployment Rates, Opposite Treatment

The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and under Obama (twice), but received completely different treatment from the networks – and in one case from the same reporter.

In 1982, Dan Rather reported the rate as “9.4 percent and rising.” Dan Cordtz called it “rising steadily” on ABC, while Ray Brady warned that “job loss is still spreading.” NBC found lines at food banks “four times what they were six months ago.”

In 2009, ABC found “glimmers of improvement” for an identical unemployment rate. CBS’s own economic “grim reaper,” Anthony Mason said the “economy’s showed signs of improving.” NBC also found “positive trends” to discuss – specifically mentioning “2,100 new reasons” to be “hopeful” in Georgia.

But Charles Gibson illustrated how dramatically different the network coverage of Reagan and Obama really were.

Gibson, who was a Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC in 1982, told viewers May 7, 1982, “[T]here really isn’t any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad.” He then quoted two Democratic attacks on Reagan including Rep. Henry S. Reuss, D-Wis., who charged that Reagan’s “policies aren’t just mistaken, they’re wicked.”

But as an ABC anchor in 2009, Gibson was full of hope. He introduced that night’s story saying “sometimes a bad jobs report can look good.”

“345,000 Americans lost their jobs in May, a big number to be sure. Traumatic if you are one of the 345,000. But the number was smaller than economists had predicted, and that’s good news,” Gibson said before admitting that the unemployment rate of 9.4 percent was “pretty bad.” Neither Gibson, nor reporter Betsy Stark mentioned President Obama at all that night.

On Aug. 7, 2009, Gibson suggested “the economy may be finally turning the corner.”

Methodology

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in similar seven-month periods – between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.

A story was counted as a mention of Obama or Reagan if it named the respective president, the administration, the “White House,” or any administration spokespeople. Each mention was then graded positive, negative or neutral based on context.

Conclusion

Despite having similar periods of rising unemployment, Presidents Reagan and Obama were treated very differently by the network news media. This fit the theme of the network news when it came to economic reporting.

Jobs and unemployment have been one of the most significant economic measures because they impacted everyone so directly. Network viewers who watched coverage of unemployment during the Reagan years were consistently told things were bad. For identical numbers under Obama, those very same networks claimed the economy was improving. That was clear-cut bias.

And it isn’t new. The Business & Media Institute released a Special Report in 2004 called “One Economy, Two Spins” which showed the way similar economic conditions (unemployment, inflation and GDP growth) were presented negatively during the re-election campaigns of George W. Bush’s Republican administration, but positively under Bill Clinton’s Democratic re-election bid.

BMI found that jobs stories in particular were positive more than six times as often under Clinton than Bush. The networks continued to distort the good economy under Bush in 2005 and 2006 giving negative stories more air time and using ordinary people to underscore those downbeat reports.

The Media Research Center also reported in 2004 that the news media sought to discredit Reaganomics with their news coverage. Virginia Commonwealth University professor Ted J. Smith III found that out of 14,000 network news stories between 1982 and 1987 the amount of network TV coverage shrunk and became more negative as the economy improved. When one economic indicator got better, the networks covered it less and focused on something unhealthy about the economy.

Recommendations

State the Facts: Unemployment data, like all economic data, should be presented as is without reporter opinions being inserted into the broadcast. Forecasting job losses or gains should be left only to the experts.

Be Consistent: If 9.4 percent unemployment is bad, then it should be treated so regardless of who is president. If the number discredits a Republican administration, it should also discredit a Democrat.

Use History as a Guide: It is up to the networks to ensure that they cover stories consistently over time. A reporter working on a story about unemployment being the worst in 26 years should consult the coverage from that time for guidance.

Don’t Spin the Economy: Reporters should be embarrassed when they highlight 25 jobs gained after telling viewers 651,000 jobs were lost. If a story is negative, then tell it that way. Don’t allow White House spin from either party to distort the final result.

Because of the media’s dishonest and deceptive propaganda, we end up believing half truths that fundamentally amount to whole lies.

As I set up why this propaganda is so fundamentally dangerous, let me quote myself:

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession.  There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save.  And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future.  Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan DID have a solution, and the result was the Reagan Revolution.

Unemployment had risen to 11%.  More businesses failed than at any time since World War II.  The picture of the economy was grim, indeed.

And then the Reagan policies – ridiculed by the very same liberal economic theorists whose policies created the inflation to begin with – began to work.  And the result – from such terrible beginnings – was the 2nd largest peacetime expansion in American history.  And now – to prove that there really is nothing new under the sun, liberal economic theorists are STILL ridiculing Reagan’s successful policy over twenty years after its success changed America.

Carter was at a self-confessed loss to solve the problem of inflation that his own administration had created.  It was Ronald Reagan who had the answer to the problem that Democrats had created and which Democrats could not solve.

I refer to the “Network Flip Flops On Jobs” article to evidence the fact that the liberal establishment thoroughly attacked Reagan for his policies.  But history clearly reveals that it wasn’t Reagan who was wrong; it was the liberals who attacked and sought to undermine him.

These same entrenched liberal establishment (and in the case of Charles Gibson, as one example, the very same people) have never learned.  They continue to believe that up is down and that down is up.  As they regard the world through a fundamentally flawed worldview, they simply cannot understand the world as it really is.  Rather, they project a liberal abstract template over the world (such as Marxist or socialist theories) which they continue to believe in — no matter how many times it is refuted by history.

We have a media that keeps seeing “unexpected rises in unemployment” and increases that – while clearly bad in and of themselves – are billed as either “better than” or less than expected” and therefore as good news.

An example of such bias is found in a New York Times article on the result of the Bush tax cuts that liberals have tried to kill ever since.  The article bagan:

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

They would NOT see that lower taxes stimulated more investment and productivity.  It simply HAD to be something else, something that their liberal filters could account for.

Under Bush, good news kept being “unexpected.”  Under Obama, it’s always bad news that’s “unexpected.”

As one poster put it:

Funny how when unemployment fell under Bush, it was always billed as a “Surprise Drop in Unemployment Numbers” or “New Job Growth Greater Than Experts Anticipated.” But when Obama is President it is always the Job losses and rising unemployment that “surprise” the experts.

In this critical time in our nation’s history – when we are more vulnerable to depression than we have been since the Great Depression itself – it is not merely the media’s bias and unfairness that is at issue anymore, though.  It is the fact that their unbalanced and prejudiced optimism is leading us toward disaster as they continue to support bad policies.

We are now the Titanic about to run full speed into the iceberg that will sink her.  There are icebergs aplenty: icebergs of shockingly high unemployment; icebergs of huge mortgage defaults which will only continue to rise; icebergs of massive and unsustainable debt; icebergs of a devalued currency; icebergs of soon-to-spiral inflation; icebergs of an-out-of-control government that WILL NOT recognize its folly until well after the soon-coming crash that will make the last one look like good times.

Stop and think about it: we’re told that we had a rise in unemployment that was worse than expected.  The median expert forecast had been 175,000 jobs lost; the actual number was 263,000.  Try way, way worse than expected.  The forecasters were a whopping 50% off.  But don’t worry; the mainstream media is still quite cheerful and optimistic.

The same media that unfairly and unrealistically demonized Reagan’s highly successful strategy is now unfairly and unrealistically praising Obama’s badly failing strategy.

The actual unemployment rate is 17%.  And yet the mainstream media presentation (with only an occasional moment to reflect on sobering news) has just been unrelentingly optimistic.  While conservatives and Republicans should rightly be outraged over the media’s bias and propaganda during Republican eras, the greater risk is the destruction that is increasingly likely to occur because the media refuses to critically examine the worsening negative effects of Obama’s policies.

The same people who continued to believe that Reagan was so, so wrong in spite of all evidence to the contrary now just as steadfastly believe that Obama is so, so right.  And that should terrify you.

This isn’t just “emperor’s new clothes”; this is wearing a View Master featuring a scenic roadway while driving the country right off a cliff.

Polls Most Damning Of Obama Now Were Most Accurate In 2008

September 4, 2009

I was watching CNN and they kept referring to a CNN poll that had Obama’s approval at 53%.  And one of the panelists was arguing, Obama is in good shape; he’s only lost one point from the election.”

Well, that didn’t sound quite – well, sane – to me.  I’ve been seeing polls from Rasmussen and Zogby that have Obama as low as 42%.  So it occurred to me to ask the question, which poll is reflecting reality?  And then it occurred to me to examine the recent past in order to understand who was best representing reality now.

Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos says Rasmussen and Pew were tied for #1.  They were spot-on in predicting the outcome and margin of the 2008 presidential campaign:

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

I couldn’t find recent results for Pew regarding presidential approval, but faith and begorrah, Rasmussen is out there for our review:

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends). Republicans have opened their largest lead yet over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot. […]

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

So the number one pollster gives Obama only 46% approval – a far shot from 53%.

This seven point difference between polls is huge because it crosses the middle and brings Obama from still very positive to entering very negative.  At 46%, Obama can no longer claim to have the nation behind him.  On top of that, the people who are coming to genuinely despise him now outnumber the people who truly adore him by a whopping 12 points.

It also tells us that Obama has basically lost a whopping 1/6th of the voters who put him in office.  That doesn’t say much about how people view Obama’s governance.

When you see a CBS poll (which claims Obama’s approval has dipped only slightly at 56%), just realize that they are at the very bottom sucking the scum with the catfish in terms of their credibility.  They dramatically overstated Obama’s popularity during the presidential election; why on earth should you trust them now?

We’re still being told how popular and how wonderful President Obama is by the mainline media.  What we’re NOT being told is that his is the 3rd fastest drop to 50% since scientific polls were taken.  Bill Clinton was the fastest; and his party suffered the most massive defeat in history two years after his election.  He then managed to regain his popularity largely by cooperating with the Republican agenda that proceeded to dominate the rest of his administration.

Zogby has Obama all the way down to 42%, which they primarily attributed to his own Democratic base leaving him.

Don’t let the media fool you into thinking that Barack Obama is the popular president whose views are shared by most Americans.  He’s just not.  He started out nearly as popular as Jimmy Carter when he first took office; and Jimmy Carter seems to be the model this presidency will follow as he leads the country into ruin.

Obama has lost more than 20 points by most polls, and largely squandered his initial popularity and approval by ramming one massive spending initiative and socialist project after another through a liberal Congress that isn’t even bothering to read their bills.  He started with a +30 approval index rating; he has now lost an incredible 42 points at his present -12.

From the moment Barack Obama took over this country, he has advanced one radical agenda after another, one shockingly expensive plan after another.  And a massive movement is beginning.  It is being driven by the same independents who turned against Bush the last two election cycles; they are now turning against Obama in droves.

66% of independents are now opposed to Obama.

Barack Obama does not represent America, or the will of the people.  Rather, he represents the radical leftist fringe of the country.

The Economy Belongs Entirely To Obama And His Fellow Leftists

July 3, 2009

When Obama passed his $787 billion stimulus (which was actually a $3.27 TRILLION pig), the economy became his.

He promised us that he knew what to do, that he could fix everything and make it all better.  His administration assurred us that if his stimulus was passed, the economic stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent.” Now that it is at 9.5% and rising, it is clear that Obama was entirely wrong about how to help the economy.

Amazingly, the in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media has turned the rising unemployment rate into a positive, claiming again and again that souring unemployment figures (and virtually every other bad news item) wasn’t as bad as predicted.  Really?  I remember when the “experts” were predicting that unemployment wouldn’t rise beyond 8% if the stimulus passed.  And yet now “some economists say the nation’s jobless rate could rise as high as 11 percent by the summer of next year,” according to the Associated Press.

And as we comprehend that reality, it is important that we realize that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that unemployment would only go to 9% by 2010 if we had done absolutely nothing.  It’s not enough to say that Obama was wrong about the impact his economic program would have on the economy; he was wildly wrong about it.  And it’s not enough to say that Obama’s economic agenda didn’t help the economy; it has HURT the economy.

Let me explain part of what is going on by citing the results of a poll of chief executive officers from October of last year:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”

Disastrous for the country.” That doesn’t sound good.  And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s got about a Barack Obama presidency.  The artcle continued:

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

Bankrupt the country within three years.” There.  You wanted socialism, now you’ve got it it.  And I hope you choke on it.  “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself ultimately becomes as broke as the defaulting homeowners we keep hearing about.  Take wealth away from the productive and keep giving it to the unproductive until there is no more wealth.  Period.

The Chief Executive Officers were very clear in their assessment: an election of Barack Obama would result in an economic disaster.

Now we’ve got exactly what they feared.

And Obama has not yet begun to ruin our economy.  He’s going full steam ahead on a disastrous health care takeover.  He’s going full steam ahead on a cap-and-trade plan that will cap productivity and trade prosperity.

Smart money knows that Obama policies will be to the economy what a plague of locusts are to agriculture.  And the smart money doesn’t want any part of it.

A Politico article from last October sounded another future gong of despair:

“We’re getting a lot more questions about the Senate than the presidential [race],” Lieber said, “because there’s almost nobody on Wall Street right now who believes McCain’s going to win.” A filibuster-proof Democratic majority (three-fifths of the chamber, or 60 senators) would not be well received by Wall Street traders, he added.

Welcome to economic hell.

The Democrats are in complete control.  The economy is theirs.  While the mainstream media continue to allow Obama to blame everything – including the result of his own policy failures to turn anything around as he predicted he could – on George Bush, the Democrats are in total control.  Just please forget the fact that both the House and the Senate were in Democrat hands when things went from quite good to seriously downhill during the last two years of the Bush presidency.

The last time the Democrats had this much control was 1978.  And things turned out just marvelous back then, too.

Tragically, I believe that in the coming years, we will look back even to the dreadful Carter years with fond affection.


Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush

November 6, 2008

I wrote an article that pretty much summed up my feelings with the Obama-Democrat victory on Tuesday: Obama Wins!  God Damn America! Two comments represent two very different points of view:

You people are rediculous [sic]. Take a minute and think about what you’re saying. You cannot continue to spew lies and deciet [sic] and expect us to come together peacfully [sic] as a country.

And:

Let’s give Obama the same chance his followers gave Bush in 2000. None.

I have to laugh at the first comment.  Did liberal individual expressing this opinion feel a similar righteous indignation for the over-the-top visceral hatred for President Bush that just seemed to go on and on and on?  I very much doubt it.  He may well be one of the many liberals with “Bush lied, people died” bumper stickers on his car.

He might be one of the “Hamas Liberals” like this [please see the update at the bottom of this article]:

I Hate Bush!
FOUND by Fred Ames in Raleigh, North Carolina
I found this by a middle school / high school bus stop while walking my dog. I know – EVERYONE hates that a*****e Bush – but I haven’t seen it expressed quite so well by a kid before!

All I can say is, “That poor dog.”

I say “Hamas Liberals” because you clearly have a school indoctrination system pumping out the same hatred for Bush that Palestinian schools are teaching their little darlings to have for Jews.  But that stuff was fine.

When I was a middle schooler, I wasn’t doodling about my hatred for President Carter, even though the man was running the country right into the ground on every front imaginable.  There has been an unhinged – and frankly demonic – hatred for President Bush that has been like nothing I have ever seen.

As a Wall Street Journal article put it, “The treatment of Bush has been a disgrace.”  It begins:

“Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.”

Bush hatred didn’t take very long to manifest itself.  People went nuts screaming that Bush stole the election in an assult against democracy.  It didn’t matter that the Palm Beach, Florida debacle occurred in a Democratic County under Democratic leadership, or that the same flawed ballot design had cost Republican Bob Dole 14,000 votes only four years earlier.  No, it was because Bush was the devil.  The outgoing Clinton administration trashed the White House to set the official Democratic tone regarding the incoming Bush administration.

Now, I’m not saying that Republican parents should indoctrinate their children at home to despise and hate Barack Obama (presumably, the public schools will continue to teach children to hate Republicans).  Nor am I suggesting that the Bush administration demonstrate its loathing of the incoming Obama adminstration like the Clinton adminstration did.

But I AM saying that Republicans should realize that Democrats have set the bar for political discourse, and we would have to be world class limbo dancers in order to set the bar any lower than Democrats did in demonizing President Bush.

Democrats have been utterly vicious rabid political monsters for years.  They destroyed Robert Bork in a campaign of unwarranted personal demonization to begin the war of the politics of personal destruction.  And when Clarence Thomas’s appointment came up, they said, We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?”  The Republican response to this shocking viciousness on the part of Democrats and liberals was to confirm the incredibly liberal (the General Counsel of the ACLU!) Clinton appointee Ruth bader Ginsburg, citing that, whatever her perspective, she was qualified.  Trusting a Democrat to return professional courtesy is like trusting a frothing-at-the-mouth rabid dog not to bite you.  It just won’t happen.  Quit hoping it will, and get with the program.

Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle.  It is ALL on them now, and every single failure – and every single event that can be spun into the appearance of a failure – are ALL on them now.  Does Obama lead us into a war for ANY reason?  He’s a murdering warmonger.   Doctor pictures of him with the blood of his victims and fangs like the ugly and evil monster he is! Does Obama NOT lead us into war for any reason?  He’s an appeasing weakling who doesn’t have the will to protect us from tyrants.  Will we see any kind of terrible national disaster?  Then it’s “Obama drinks blood from human skulls!” Does the economy do anything other than spiral ever upward and upward?  It’s a failed Obama presidency” and “failed Democratic policies.” And – given the fact that yesterday marked the “biggest loss ever on the day after a presidential election,” well, Obama is already “a failed President” faster than anyone’s ever been a failed President.

Don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites try to tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave to Bush.  After what they’ve done, they don’t deserve to talk about graciousness, respect, what’s best for the country, or any of their other smarmy self-serving rhetoric.

It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.  The Democrats demonstrated the pathway to political success; let us follow the ashes to learn the example of the trail the Democrats blazed.

Update, December 21, 2o11: I had cause to cite this article again, and discovered that the liberal who posted the “I hate Bush!” note had deleted it (like the lying coward that he is). But no fear; I was able to find an archive of that image here. And this time I saved it to my hard drive as well:

For the record, I’ve never purged a single thing after posting more than 1,900 articles. Because unlike liberals, I actually have the courage that comes from the nobility of my ideas to stand up for what I said, and either defend it or at least have the decency to admit I was wrong to say it.