Posts Tagged ‘cynical’

Obama Let In 9,500 ‘Immigrants’ With Terrorist Ties, Revoked Their Visas After The Fact, And Now Has NO IDEA AT ALL Where They Are

December 18, 2015

Is this part of a plan?

Obama has “lost track” of 9,500 “immigrants” whose visas were revoked because they were identified as having ties to terrorism.

In what might be the WORST thing about this new revelation is that Tashfeen Malik – the murderous Islamic terrorist who came here on a visa and gunned down 35 people (murdering 14) – was not even ON that list of 9.500 potential terrorists.

We have under Obama and because of Obama completely lost any handle, any track, any sense of the exploding problem of Islamic terrorism (that Obama won’t even acknowledge is a problem).

Take a look at this and mourn for your country that has had I.E.D.s implanted into its bowels because of one wicked man and one wicked political party:

Terrific: Feds Have No Clue If 9500 People With Revoked Visas and Links to Terrorism Are in U.S.
Katie Pavlich | Dec 18, 2015

In case you missed it yesterday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing about the vetting process for refugees entering the United States from terrorism hot spots.

During the hearing, officials from the State Department and Homeland Security were asked about the location of 9,500 individuals who have been stripped of their U.S. visas because of links to terrorism. They had no idea and could not say if these individuals were still in the U.S.

“The Department [State] has revoked approximately 122,000 visas for a variety of reasons including nearly 9500 with links to terrorism. Of the 122,000 revoked visas, how many of those people are still in the United States?” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz asked Department of State Assistant Secretary Michele Bond. 

“I don’t know,” she responded.

“Homeland Security, how many revoked visas are still in the United States of America,” Chaffetz asked DHS Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Alan Bersin. 

“Mr. Chairman, I don’t have that,” he responded. 

According to a 2014 report from ABC News, the federal government has lost track of 6,000 foreign nationals who have overstayed their student visas. Keep in mind that this is the tactic the 9/11 hijackers used.

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.

In the meantime, the White House is moving forward with plans to bring in an absolute MINIMUM of 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States within the next two years.

We currently – and I mean RIGHT STINKING NOW – have more refugees fleeing a world that is collapsing than at any time in the documented history of the world:

Worldwide displacement hits all-time high as war and persecution increase
News Stories, 18 June 2015

GENEVA, June 18 (UNHCR) – Wars, conflict and persecution have forced more people than at any other time since records began to flee their homes and seek refuge and safety elsewhere, according to a new report from the UN refugee agency.

UNHCR’s annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released on Thursday (June 18), said that worldwide displacement was at the highest level ever recorded. […]

There wouldn’t have BEEN a refugee crisis unless Obama had created it.

And in the same way, terrorism and terrorist groups and terrorist attacks have EXPLODED under Obama BECAUSE of Obama.  [But please don’t tell liberals that terrorist murders quadrupled under Obama or else they’ll give him ANOTHER Nobel Peace Prize; these people are just that steeped in evil and deceit].

And therefore the massive way of Muslim “immigration” into America that Obama has not only facilitated but demanded has overwhelmed any means for anyone trying to protect America.  And I mean, SHOULDN’T OBAMA KNOW THIS?  SHOULDN’T HE CARE?  BUT HE DOESN’T CARE.  Because Obama has an ideology and a partisan agenda, and nothing else matters to him.

And currently – and I mean RIGHT STINKING NOW – Obama is incredibly saying that his plan is working wonderfully.  This is a man who is completely owned by Satan.

You cannot explain the mystery of lawlessness that is Obama without understanding that there is a personal Satan who owns Obama’s soul, owns the Democrat Party that is Obama’s machine, and therefore owns America.  Which USED to be “one nation under God” until the Democrat Party stripped God from the nation.

But let me get back to the 9,500 very-possible TERRORISTS who may very well be in our country RIGHT NOW because Obama just didn’t bother to look for them.

Do you understand that?  Nearly 10,000 terrorists are God-knows-where and quite likely working on their plots to murder in the name of Allah – and Obama’s response is to demand we let in ANOTHER 10,000 potential terrorists from a hostile and collapsed state where a) we can’t possibly vet anyone anyway even in the best of times and b) Islamic State has seized their own passport machine AND the blank official passport forms to manufacture “authentic Syrian passports.”

Add to that number the 6,000 that Obama allowed in who used the exact same trick as the 9/11 terrorists who brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and murdered 3,000 people.

Add to THAT number ANOTHER 122,000 CRIMINALS who are guilty of crimes as bad as rape and murder whom Obama just completely lost track of.

As to this immediate above, it’s not like conservatives weren’t frothing in rage about it FIVE DAMN YEARS AGO (as I documented):

New Obama ICE Plan Refuses To Deport Illegals Without ‘Serious’ Criminal Record

And therefore Obama’s INTENTIONAL RELEASE of 68,000 illegal immigrant CRIMINALS INCLUDING MURDERERS AND RAPISTS was a matter of inevitability (as I documented):

Obama Released 68,000 Convicted Criminal Illegal Immigrants Last Year (To Attack/Udermine Americans AGAIN)

Barack Obama is a man who truly, passionately hates and despises America.  He doesn’t give one flying DAMN about you or your family.  In fact, he HOPES you suffer because he believes he can radicalize you to his ends; he HOPES you are murdered by terrorists because he can exploit your murder and incite the fools he radicalizes to further his ends.  You are nothing more than an insignificant means to his pathologically demonic ends.

He has already revealed his cynical plan to use every new terrorist attack as his political mechanism to attack the American people and attack their Constitution and obliterate their 2nd Amendment rights.

There is no possible way NOT to include that Obama and Democrats aren’t doing this on purpose.  Incompetence doesn’t even BEGIN to explain this.

Does Obama even BEGIN to care about the American people?  Did he EVER care?  The answer is not a care in hell.

Obama just responded to the San Bernardino terrorist massacre by freeing a bunch of terrorists from Gitmo.  He just did it again, freeing more terrorists than at any time in his entire cancerous presidency.  But get this as described by former Attorney General Judge Michael Mukasey:

And from day – wasn’t day one, it was actually day two when he started signing orders closing Gitmo, eliminating the CIA interrogation program that it was obvious he was going to do this. And he proceeded along that road. If you take a look, there is an interesting YouTube video him signing executive orders on the second day of his administration. Where he signs an executive order to close Gitmo, takes a look at it, he says do we have another order that says what were going to do with these people? And so voice off camera says we’re going to have procedures.

No, they didn’t have any plan for what to do with the terrorists they were freeing.  But so what?  They didn’t CARE.  Obama let them go anyway.  They STILL don’t have a damn plan and they STILL don’t care.  It is a damn miserable fact that one in three of the “Gitmo detainees” have been DOCUMENTED to have returned to terrorism (keep in mind what I’ve shown the U.S. government CAN’T keep track of, right?).  And they don’t care.

Obama is in the genre and model and mode of Adolf Hitler who first exploited the Reichstag fire to suspend the rights of German citizens and then exploited the Gleiwitz incident to take his next step into dictatorship.  Obama has a proven “never let a good crisis go to waste” mentality: I submit that, given the above facts that Obama has clearly perpetrated on the American people, it is beyond entirely reasonable to believe that Obama plans to cynically exploit the terror attacks he has invited on America as his “justification” to suspend the 2016 election if it looks like a Republican could win in addition to seizing our guns that we would need to defend ourselves against his fascist tyranny.

Obama has literally INTENTIONALLY flooded America with terrorists so he can blame their terrorism – whose actual source of Islam he demonically refuses to acknowledge – on guns.  It doesn’t matter to him that the attack in San Bernardino took place in a liberal state with the tightest gun laws in the country; it doesn’t matter that the immediate prior mass terror attack in France took place in a COUNTRY with some of the tightest gun laws in the WORLD.  Just as it doesn’t matter to him that he is a truly wicked man for allowing all of these murderers into America to attack us.

He’s giving us another useless blathering speech today and then he’s off to Hawaii for another vacation.

Like I said, Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist monster, was NOT one of these 9,500 potential terrorists.  Because Obama completely missed her in every imaginable way.  She was entirely free to commit jihad murder.  Obama not only didn’t do anything to stop her; he invited her in even after it should have been obvious that she was plotting jihadist mayhem.

The beast is coming.  And very soon every single mass-murdering baby-slaughtering homosexual-sodomy-perversion worshiping Democrat will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

 

Advertisements

One Possible Republican Response To The Incredible Cynicism Of Obama’s Jobs Speech

September 8, 2011

Many recognize that Obama’s jobs speech tonight is little more than the lowest form of cynicism.

As low as Obama is in the polls, Congress is even lower.  So what does Obama do?  Call a joint session of Congress so he can rhetorically position himself (and run against) Congress.

And this plan that Obama announced before he even actually had any plan – the one that the White House was “scrambling” to put together – the one that was going to be $300 billion and then $400 billion and now possibly even $450 billion: what is it but the most cynical attempt to create a scenario in which he can claim that he had “the solution” if but Republicans hadn’t put their partisan political interests ahead of the nation and passed it?

It is common knowledge that there is no possible WAY IN HELL that Obama’s jobs plan will actually be implemented.  Remember that Democrats – when they controlled the House as well as the Senate and the White House – couldn’t pass a tax hike in December 2010.  The fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with substance – with actually helping so much as one person actually get a job – and everything to do with the lowest and most cynical sort of political rhetoric.

Well, here’s how Republicans COULD respond to Obama’s plan: with equal cynicism.

What if the Republican leadership issues Obama and the Democrat Party the following challenge: “Okay.  We’ll agree to pass your plan.  And all we ask for in return is a date CERTAIN by which YOU, Mr. President, YOU, Mr. Vice President, and EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT in Congress who votes for this package will resign from office in abject disgrace if it fails to turn the economy around – as it WILL fail just like all of your other failed Keynesian crap has failed?!?!?

When will you resign?  The last time you had a massive failed stimulus, you promised that you could create millions of jobs and bring the unemployment rate down below 6.7% by now if we passed your $862 billion stimulus?

What specific performance measures will you guarantee and by which date will every single Democrat leave office if you fail like you have already repeatedly failed???

Great General Leaving Afghanistan So Fool President Can Be The Weakling His Leftist Base Demands

February 16, 2011

Here’s a stunner: did you think Afghanistan was going badly?  It’s about to get a LOT worse.  Because yet another top general under Obama – and probably the greatest field commander of this generation – is on his way out:

Gen. David Petraeus, the most celebrated American soldier of his generation, is to leave his post as commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, The (London) Times reported Tuesday.

The Times reported that the Pentagon aims to replace Petraeus, who was appointed less than eight months ago, by the end of the year.

Sources have confirmed that the search for a new commander in Kabul is under way. It forms part of a sweeping reorganization of top American officials in Afghanistan, which the Obama administration hopes to present as proof that its strategy does not depend on the towering reputation of one man.

[…]

Many of the moves are expected to coincide with a reduction in US troop numbers, which Obama has promised will start this summer, despite General Petraeus’s objections.

The news that the general himself would be leaving Kabul stunned close observers of US strategy, but the Pentagon insisted Tuesday it was a natural development, given the demands of running the war and Washington’s need for fresh blood in a crucial role.

“This is a heck of a demanding job,” Morrell said of General Petraeus’s central task of driving the Taliban from its strongholds in southern Afghanistan, which US commanders now claim is almost complete. “He will have to be rotated out at some point.”

Nothing to see here, folks.  Please return to your hovels at once.

You remember General Patton, of course, and how he was always whining about the all the stress and how he didn’t want to fight and all he wanted to do was go home.  Happens all the time.

You get to see the REAL REASON for this departure via Reuters:

The question is what this move, if confirmed, would mean for policy.  Petraeus, more than anyone else, has been identified with the intensified military campaign in Afghanistan which, according to critics of the policy,  has reduced prospects of a political settlement by alienating Taliban leaders who might otherwise be coaxed into peace talks

Petraeus has been a towering figure in Washington and difficult to challenge politically. He had what was seen in the United States as a good track record in Iraq. And he was backed by Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — making it very hard for those within the U.S. administration who disagreed with his assessment to win President Barack Obama over to their point of view. 

Moreover, Obama had already sacked two generals — Generals David McKiernan and Stanley McChrystal — and could hardly dismiss a third. (If I remember rightly — and no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong — no president since Abraham Lincoln has changed his generals so frequently in wartime.) Promoting Petraeus would be far easier.

His departure, especially with Gates on his way out, could create the space for Obama to recalibrate Afghan strategy, backing away from the military surge and focusing more on a political settlement – if he wants to do so.

Appeasement will work.  It has always worked before.  The best thing you can do is ignore the fact of history that weakness is a provocation and appease, appease, appease your enemy.

If it hadn’t been for Neville Chamberlain and his highly succesful policy of appeasement, it’s difficult to imagine how the world would not have erupted into war in 1939.  Thank the all powerful state that we listened to weakness and gave up Poland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler and gave up Manchuria and China to Tojo.  Strengthening our enemies by giving them land and materials while becoming weaker ourselves is invariably a certain path to peace and prosperity.

I’ll stop.  Pathetically ignorant and naive weakling moral idiot liberals will probably actually think I’m being serious.

It is stunning what an embarassment and what a disgrace the first community agitator ever to become president has been for this country.

Remember how Obama predicted Iraq would be a failure and said the surge strategy wouldn’t work?

The Fool-in-Chief said back when he was just another fool liberal US Senator:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

But, of course, George Bush was right about Iraq and about the surge; Obama was the totally wrong moron he still is.  And in fact Iraq went so well that soon after Bush left office the Obama administration was crowing:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

You can see those and other statements from Obama in article documenting just what a cynical and manipulative liar this appeasing weakling truly is.

One of the many ways you can see how loathsome liberals are is their hypocritical turnabout on General David Petraeus himself.  Or should I say, “General Betray Us?”

As we get ready for Obama to show his liberal spots and cut-and-run as anyone not a moron always said Obama would do, consider that the same heroic General Petraeus who had previously been lambasted as General Betray Us simply because he commanded troops and fought for his country while a Republican was president essentially said that Obama’s 2011 cut-and-run timetable was merely a political decision.

And let’s not forget how Obama not only demonized the war in Iraq that Bush won only to claim credit for Bush’s victory, but also how Obama made Afghanistan “the good war.”  And allow me at the same time to take a trip down “I told you so” lane:

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.”  It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

George Bush selected Iraq as his central front for sound strategic reason.  Iraq had a despotic tyrant who supported terrorism.  Saddam Hussein needed to be removed to mount any kind of successful peace effort in the Middle East.  Iraq is located in the heart of the Arab/Islamic world.  It has an educated population relative to the rest of the region.  It also offered precisely the type of terrain that would allow American forces to implement their massive military superiority in a way that mountainous, cave-ridden Afghanistan would not.

Bush was determined to fight a war where he could win.  Obama foolishly trapped us in a war that would bleed us.  Why?  For no other reason than pure political demagoguery.  And he needs to be held accountable.

And where are we now under Obama’s failed leadership???

An article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

See my piece from last year predicting this failure.  Read that article and explain to me where I was wrong, liberals.  I dare you.

I’m still waiting, you pathetic liberal vermin.

Bush won in Iraq; he changed the entire dynamic in the Middle East.  And if anything is contributing toward the movement toward democracy in the Middle East, it is the fact that George W. Bush built a democracy in the very heart of the Arab and Muslim world.  Barack Obama demanded that we fight in Afghanistan – where Bush had essentially mounted a containing operation because Afghanistan is and always has been the grave yard of empires.  And he has been losing there miserably ever since he dramatically and massively escalated the war there.

Obama insisted that we cut-and-run where we could win; and he demanded that we fight to the bitter end where we would bog down.

I’ve tried to explain that to liberals.  But better to teach physics to my dog than common sense to a liberal.  Iraq was perfect terrain for the US to mount a successful military operation; and Afghanistan is the worst terrain imaginable for our tactics while serving as the best terrain imaginable for the guerrila tactics of the Taliban.  You ever try to drive a tank up a mountain or fly a gunship into a cave?  Bush succeeded in Iraq largely because he wasn’t a fool and fought in the right geography.  Obama is losing in Afganistan because he’s a fool.  Plain and simple.

Look at the casualties in Afghanistan: Obama more than doubled the 2008 casualties in Afghanistan under Bush in his first year.  And then he took that figure that he doubled from Bush and increased it by over 57% his next year as Failure-in-Chief.

And now here we are in “preparation-t0-cut-and-run” mode after Obama utterly failed.

And we now already know that the whole war fiasco was nothing but cynical politics from the get-go for Obama:

… the president decided to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because, he said, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

And liberals are the kind of scum – and “scum” is if anything to weak of a word – who continue to denounce Bush’s victory even as they cheer Obama for first losing and then cutting and running in defeat and disgrace.

Cynicism piled on top of more cynicism.  A sauce of weakness poured over that.  And then – like the cherry – appeasement on top.

Obama will almost certainly offer General Petraeus the Chairman of the JCS position.  I hope General Petraeus turns him down and resigns.  But General Petraeus will likely believe that he’s better serving his country by taking the top military position.

Here’s why I believe he’s wrong to do so, and NOT serving the country’s interests at all.  Suppose you are a master mechanic and you take a job at a repair shop.  I’m the owner of the shop, and I am a total disgrace who is determined to screw the customers and ruin their cars.  You take the job because you think you can at least mitigate the disaster I create.  But can you, if you’re carrying out my orders?  You’re going to end up doing nothing more than assisting me while I screw the customers and ruin their cars.  If you REALLY want to help the customers, your best bet is to quit and then blow the whistle on all the harm I’m causing.

And that’s what General Petraeus should do.

Most generals don’t want to do that.  They don’t want to make that unfamiliar transition from military strategy to political policy.  But as long as General Petraeus continues to serve a fool, he’s only going to end up implementing foolish and unworkable policies.

Spending Demon Democrats Demand Another $1.9 TRILLION In Debt Ceiling

January 21, 2010

Would you mind giving me a small loan?  All I need is two trillion dollars.

I’m good for it.  Seriously.

Democrats seek to up debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion
By DAVID ROGERS | 1/20/10 8:47 PM EST

Upping the ante just a day after losing their 60th Senate seat, Democrats moved Wednesday to seek a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling and give the Treasury adequate borrowing authority past November’s elections and into next year.

Republicans were caught off guard by the scale of the increase which follows a $290 billion short-term debt increase approved prior to Christmas. “That’s just escapism of the worst sort,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R.,N.H.) told POLITICO. But Democrats countered that their only alternative would be to give-in to a Republican strategy of forcing multiple smaller debt ceiling increases, designed to bleed them politically before November.

This perception was reinforced by a meeting Tuesday between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). By going now with the higher $1.9 trillion target, Democrats are making a high-stakes gamble that the party can pull together once more to put the debt ceiling issue behind them for this election year.

“We have to do this. The alternative is worse,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D—Mont.) in a brief interview.

Why can’t the Democrats do their “high-stakes gamble” with their own $2 trillion?

So the Democrats are clearly playing politics – wanting a massive and risky debt ceiling increase of nearly $2 trillion so that people will forget before the November elections.

And Republicans are being depicted as playing politics by making Democrats pass smaller, more incremental increases that would make Democrats look bad.

But Democrats look bad all by themselves.  And the incremental increases have never been anything even close to such a massive sum.  From Bloomberg:

The debt limit increase, raising the legal cap on government borrowing to about $14 trillion, would be the fourth in 18 months. A $1.8 trillion boost would probably be enough to prevent lawmakers from having to raise the limit again before next year’s midterm elections.

Such an increase would be more than twice the size of each of the past three debt limit increases, each of which lifted the cap by $800 billion or less.

So it’s really just political demagoguery to accuse the Republicans of pursuing a purely political agenda.  And this is how the leftwing political establishment and the leftwing media present a narrative instead of just presenting the facts.

There are actually more than a few people who think that the government is irresponsible, and shouldn’t have so much money to spend all at once, lest they piss it away and waste it.  I’m one of those people.

If your next door neighbors aren’t massively in debt, they’re probably such people, too.

Even Democrats were reluctant to vote for the last debt ceiling increase (of $290 billion) just before Christmas without a significant effort to reduce spending.

So to solve this problem – or at least go through the motions of pretending to solve it – “the Obama administration reached a tentative accord with congressional Democrats to create a version of the panel by executive order.  Obama’s proposal “would require Congress to vote on the commission’s recommendations without making any changes.”  And “with a commission created by presidential order, congressional leaders would promise to bring its proposals to a vote although such a vote wouldn’t be required by law.”

And that kind of crap-sandwich is what’s making Republicans roll their eyeballs about 180 degrees:

[Republican Senator Judd] Gregg told reporters that the proposal to create a commission by executive order was “a very cynical act by the administration” that “is by definition partisan and the whole purpose” is to have a bipartisan body.

“There is no way you can require a vote” by Congress so “it’s a nothing-burger,” Gregg said.

Which is to say that Obama wants to get a blank check of $1.9 trillion, which he hopes will tidy him over until AFTER the November midterms so Democrats won’t look bad coming for mere hundreds of billions in dribs and drabs.  And Republicans are supposed to go along with that, because they obviously should make the Democrats’ political fortunes the center of their world.  In exchange for this fools’ bargain, Republicans (and the fiscally responsible Democrats who don’t want to vote for it either) would get a commission that would have the power to impose nothing — the nothing burger.

I bet a nice, big, juicy nothing burger sounds pretty good to you.  Just don’t try to count on actually ever being able to eat it.

And by Obama’s demagoguery narrative, the Republicans will be evil if they don’t go along with this stupidity.

Note to Congress: try spending less.

I know one place you could start: the Obama White House averaged one party every three days during Obama’s first year.

Back in January 2009, before he signed his failed $787 billion stimulus bill into law, Barack Obama told America that everyone must sacrifice for the greater good. Everyone must have “some skin in the game.”

What he meant, of course, was that everyone would have to sacrifice to lift American out of the worst recession since the Great Depression except for Barack and Michelle Obama.

A party every three days, and nothing but the finest at the White House.  That’s a lot of Black Sea caviar and French truffles.

So you can see why Obama wants that $1.9 trillion.

Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie

November 11, 2009

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.

Obama’s Berlin Speech Reveals Europeans Gutless On Terror

July 26, 2008

Correspondent Major Garrett filed this report for Fox News Special Report that appeared Thursday, July 25, on Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin, Germany:

MAJOR GARRETT: The scene, unprecedented in contemporary European politics, was unlike any a U.S. presidential nominee ever had the audacity to expect, or the cultural candlepower to attract. But to the upbeat throngs estimated by Berlin police to be in excess of 200,000 Obama did not sing a sweet song of hope and change. Instead he zeroed in on the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

OBAMA SPEECH VIDEO: “This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.”

MAJOR GARRETT: That means Germany and other NATO nations must throw more into the battlefield in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban and its terror-plotting al Qaeda allies have recently launched increasingly lethal attacks.”

As for Iran and its headlong pursuit of nuclear weaponry, Obama said While Europe may welcome his call for direct unconditional talks, europe must back such an initiative with a heretofore missing committment to using all economic and diplomatic tools to isolate and punish Iran if it proves intractable.

OBAMA SPEECH VIDEO: “This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.”

“A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less.”

MAJOR GARRETT: On a continent weary of Pres. Bush Obama spoke of a new era, but hastened to add, if he’s elected, his administration will not represent a cost-free alternative to the status-quo.

The crowd, which did not applaud that much, filed quietly away. If Obama hoped his words would galvanize the audience and his message would thereby reverberate in capitals throughout Europe, there was no evidence of it. The tepid response may stand as a silent declaration that calls for new sacrifice and anti-terror tenacity – whether spoken by the current president or the presumptive Democratic nominee – meets similar European skepticism.

Garrett noted that Obama’s speech did garner some applause lines – on the issues of global warming, a call for “just peace” between Israel and the Palestinas, and especially on the call to end the war in Iraq.

But the real story was the absence of applause on Obama’s presentation of his foreign policy.

One of the biggest delusions Democrats suffer from is the perception that if only their guy were president, the world would love us. They believe that Europeans hate President Bush because he’s a cowboy who ignored them and decided to do it all on his own.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

We saw a little bit of the real problem in Berlin on Thursday: if Barack Obama wants to stand up to terrorists and demand Iran renounce its nuclear weaponry, he better expect that he will be acting alone.

Europeans are not willing to sacrifice. They don’t want to “renew their resolve to rout the terrorists.” They don’t want to have a stake in seeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan is a success. They don’t want to send troops to Afghanistan. They don’t want to send “a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” They don’t want to commit to “using all economic and diplomatic tools to isolate and punish Iran.” They don’t want to “be required to do more–not less.”

Now, personally, I don’t really believe that Barack Obama wants any of this either. I think he was simply pandering to American public opinion and mouthing the slogans that Americans want to hear from a man they rightly believe is weak on foreign policy.

But don’t expect squat from Europe if you want to stand up and act in order to secure a better and safer world.

I came across an interesting article titled, “Why Europeans Doubt Colombia’s Hostage Rescue,” that sheds some light on European’s attitude.

The story presents the fact that European papers and television across the continent were presenting and believing the myth that Columbia bribed the terrorist organization FARC to release the hostages, and the rescue by the army was just a ruse. It provides details of how France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and Spain have paid one ransom after another for hostages. And then it concludes:

European friends of the FARC are angry. How dare Colombia join the ranks of Britain, Israel, and the United States by refusing to negotiate with terrorists? How dare Colombia disprove the European mantra that all conflicts be resolved through diplomacy? How dare Colombia upstage post-heroic Europeans who, having lost the will to fight, believe anything can be bought for money?

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe summed it up well: “There are some who are bitter and who are seeking to discredit the operation. But these bitter people only know Colombia from afar. Aloof Europeans, what do they know about Colombian ingenuity? They believe that Colombian genius lies with the FARC. Someday they will know these military boys who carried out this operation.”

The fact of the matter is that Europe looks at diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise as end-all solutions. Look at what they have accomplished, they would argue: we formed our European Union on the basis of compromise. We who were former enemies united; why can’t we likewise come together with opponents such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran?

What they don’t realize is that the United States of America has a rather enormous advantage of experience in the process of “uniting,” having done so nearly two centuries before Europe got into the act; that Americans aren’t much interested in hearing moral lectures on politics from the inventors of monarchism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and socialism; that the only reason Europeans aren’t speaking first German and after that Russian is because the United States stood up and fought for their freedom; and that Europeans ought to be therefore grateful enough and generous enough to stand with the United States as we continue to fight for the freedom of other oppressed peoples.

What Europeans have conveniently forgotten is that their freedom was won for them, and not by them. What they have forgotten was that their diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise didn’t mean squat to the Nazis or the Soviets; only American power and our willingness to use it mattered to these determined enemies of human freedom.

If Barack Obama becomes president (and, I must admit, there’s a part of me – and I’m ashamed to admit this – that wants Obama to get elected so that everyone can see just how spectacularly liberalism will fail) he will be shocked to discover that Europe will be nothing but an obstacle to his every effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

An article titled “Why Europe Won’t Sanction Iran” provides a lot of the underlying reasons for this behavior.

The reason President Bush ultimately was forced to attack Iraq was because France and Russia did everything they could to prevent any meaningful sanctions being applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in a corrupted and incompetent United Nations. We had good reasons for believing that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and were frustrated at every turn by Europe in obtaining the tough sanctions that would have forced Saddam to open up his program to inspection. Unable to obtain a diplomatic solution, we were forced to either attack or risk a WMD-armed Iraq.

And Russia and China are doing the same thing now in protecting Iran even as it is almost certainly developing a nuclear weapons program.

We’re going to see the same demand to let diplomacy and sanctions work – even as every meaningful effort at diplomacy and sanctions is thwarted; we’re going to see the same aversion to war – even as war becomes the only option; we’re going to see the same international condemnation and isolation all over again.

Or we’re going to see a nuclear-armed Iran that will be free to carry out terrorist campaigns by proxy and even shut down the Strait of Hormuz at will with absolute impunity.

Europeans have largely degenerated into Nietzsche’s portrayal of the “Last Man,” the end result of decades of creeping cynicism and mediocrity.

Today, Europeans are frankly both pathetic and apathetic. They won’t stand up for anything; they won’t fight for anything. The people who are literally dying out due to extremely low birth rates don’t care if they are consuming benefits paid for by massive debt that will crush the next generations after them. And their most cherished desire is that the mighty United States would be as weak, as pathetic, and as insignificant as they are.

Americans would have a different view of the world – and a different view of President George Bush – if they learned that lesson. It may take the election of a liberal president, and the crisis of a nuclear Iran, to drive that reality home.

New York Times Rips Obama on Character

July 5, 2008

When the New York Times rebukes the most liberal senator in Congress and the Democratic nominee for president, you know he’s got a problem with his base.

It is painfully common knowledge that Barack Obama has shifted dramatically in his policies to position himself as a liberal-moderate. Every politician tends to shift policies during the course of a campaign, but Barack Obama has reversed himself more quickly and more dramatically than any candidate in modern history (even John Kerry, whose “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” remark defined him as a serial flip-flopper). And Obama’s reversals are particularly glaring given his arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, smarmy self-serving rhetoric that he would be different and above it all when it came to such political tactics.

His abandonment of his public campaign finance pledge by itself proves that Barack Obama is not a candidate for the people, but rather a candidate for Barack Obama.

Many of his reversals have come at the cost of liberals, who want the most liberal Senator in the country to become the most liberal President in American history. They feel betrayed. So perhaps it should come as no suprise that the quintessentially liberal New York Times would take Obama to task for his betrayals.

I cite the entire July 4, 2008 New York Times editorial in its entirety:

July 4, 2008
Editorial
New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Too late: Obama has already begun his maneuvering to reverse himself on the biggest “big question: of all; Obama has backed off his previously iron-clad pledge to cut-and-run in Iraq within 16 months. Hillary Clinton – who had a more moderate and cautious approach to Iraq that hurt her in the liberal-oriented Democratic primaries, claimed that Obama would do exactly what he is in fact doing now. Obama said time and time again that “I will bring the troops home in 2009,” but he is now hedging behind the disclaimer that he will only do so with the military commanders’ blessing.

Obama promised he would pull out of Iraq within 16 months dozens of times without caveats when he faced a liberal electorate; now he is deceitfully “refining” his position in order to pander to the more conservative overall electorate. John McCain, by contrast, has been absolutely firm and absolutely clear on his Iraq position even when it cost him politically. He publicly and repeatedly urged President Bush to send more troops into Iraq in a surge campaign when the situation in Iraq was difficult and vulnerable, and when even Republicans were beginning to waver in their commitment to Iraq.

The New York Times makes it quite clear that they wanted this guy to win. They thought he was different, but he is revealing that “hope” and “change” was never anything more than a rhetorical ploy.

I would argue that Barack Obama truly is different: he is the most cynical presidential candidate in history. The man who got his start in politics by stabbing Alice Palmer in the back to become a state senator is revealing his true character. This man – who used byzantine legal tactics and insider personal relationships to invalidate the voters’ will and keep a candidate off the ballot who had previously won her district with 87% of the vote, and who literally threw his own grandmother under the bus for the sake of political cover – is showing that he will betray anyone and anything to obtain personal power.

The Latin description for Obama is Hypocriticus Maximus. I have seen that in this man with crystal clarity ever since the day his church’s incredibly radical theology was revealed. Liberals and Democrats have repeatedly complained about “guilt by association,” but tell me when you have ever seen a major candidate for president ever having had such “associations.” And when these associations are exposed, he dismisses one longstanding friendship and relationship after another as he continues his climb to the top.

I use the word “cynical” – which the New York Times itself uses to characterize Obama – because only an incredibly cynical man would attack the modern political apparatus even as he uses that same apparatus to maximum personal advantage; only the most cynical candidate would claim to be so different from any politician who has ever come before when he is anything but.