June Jobs Report: Disgraceful Job Numbers For A Completely Failed President

80,000 jobs.  Do you know how pathetic that is?  We need an absolute minimum of 125,000 jobs a month (in light of our 313 million citizens it’s more like 200,000) just to begin to keep up with population growth.  And when you consider Obama’s godawful labor participation rate and the number of working-age Americans who have just been cast out during the cancer of this presidency, it is an abject disgrace.

But here’s the thing: you listen to Obama campaign and you’d think the last four years didn’t happen.  He’s mouthing the same garbage that he was blathering when he was running for president in 2008.  Nothing bad has happened (“the private sector’s doing fine”) or it’s anybody and anything else’s fault but the man who sits behind “the buck stops here” desk in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama is the most narcissistic, the most ignorant, the most naive and the most demagogic president America has ever seen.  Bar none.

Obama told us that the answer to the bad economy was a government takeover of the private economy via his stimulus.  He took office when unemployment was 7.6 percent.  If his stimulus passed, he promised, unemployment would never get to 8 percent – and in fact by this time (July 2012) unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  History proves that Obama was completely wrong and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to get an economy moving.  All he can do is count on people to believe the same lies he’s been making for years and idiotic things.

One of the idiotic things you’ve got to believe is a flip side of Obama’s “I’m the president who got bin Laden” argument.  On this view, had George Bush had another term or even two more terms, he never would have been able to get bin Laden.  And of course Bush couldn’t have got bin Laden because he’s not Obama, and only Obama could have ever got bin Laden.  It doesn’t matter if the military loved Bush far more than Obama, or that the esprit of the CIA was far, FAR higher under Bush; only Obama could possibly have got bin Laden.  End of discussion.  It wasn’t just a matter of time as Bush said it would be; it was Obama personally nailing bin Laden with his sheer magnificent wonderfulness.

If you apply this same mindset to Bush and the economy, we had a terrible economic hit (actually caused by liberals who recklessly ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, but that’s another story) and as Bush left office we were lost 700,000 jobs in just one month.  And the religious doctrine that all Democrats must believe as an article of their faith in messiah Obama is that if Bush were still president today, we would have continued to lose 700,000 jobs every single month and unemployment would be 30 percent today.  And of course Obama’s otherwise godawful performance now looks GREAT if you consider the 30 percent unemployment that we would of course had had under George Bush.  Never mind facts like no recession has ever lasted forever; and never mind that there have only been TWO times when America didn’t come roaring back from a bad recession and both occurred under socialist presidents (Obama and FDR).  The average recession lasts 11 months.  And historically we get very strong recoveries out of recessions.  But if Bush were still president it would have lasted forever and ever and ever.  And only messiah Obama can possibly deliver us.  Because Mitt Romney is the devil.  And do you want a rich, evil, vulture capitalist vampire monster to be your president when you could have more Obama instead???  Hint: if you say “yes” you’re clearly a racist.

So we listen to Democrats demonize “the failed Republican policies” that got us into this terrible mess and we believe their narrative that of course Obama must never be blamed for anything negative but must be given total credit for anything positive.  We are taught to not remember that George W. Bush – who himself inherited a terrible recession with the DotCom bubble burst that happened on Clinton’s watch and which wiped out $7.1 trillion in American wealth – ended his presidency with a 5.26 percent overall unemployment rate.

5.26 percent.  That’s not bad for a president who inherited the DotCom bubble collapse which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq Exchange valuation before we here hit on 9/11 due to Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and intelligence budgets while he emboldened Osama bin Laden into believing that America was a paper tiger.

If we extrapolate pure liberal demagoguery and simply utterly refuse to consider history, then Obama is the answer.  Otherwise this pathetic president truly and profoundly sucks.

So let’s let the messiah who has an average unemployment rate of 9.16 percent through June 2012 assure us that the president who had a 5.26% unemployment rate was terrible for jobs.  And we’ll believe him because this is God damn America and God damn America is under a spirit of delusion.

Yesterday (July 5) I had CNBC’s Larry Kudlow program on, and Kudlow had two economists representing a liberal (Dean Baker) and conservative (David Goldman) perspective.  Baker had an optimistic view, believing that the Labor Department release today would show that we created a lousy but-comparatively great 165,000 jobs in June; Goldman believed the report would be even worse than the economists’ consensus view of 125,000 jobs and we’d get only 100,000 jobs.  To make it even more interesting and show just how LOUSY liberals and liberalism are, Baker demagogued Goldman and accused him of merely ticking off “talking points” as compared to Baker who was of course examining the NUMBERS.

And Dean Baker documented just who was the ideologue living in a world of talking points: 80,000 jobs.  Not even HALF of his shockingly idiotic estimate.  And it was the conservative and his “talking points” who was right, right, RIGHT.

If it was a street fight, Goldman would be standing over Baker’s corpse and liberalism would be lying on the street DEAD.  But you just can’t kill this failed ideology of liberalism off in a “civilized” world.  They just get to keep screeching to fools and counting on the fact that there will always be ignorant, stupid, depraved people who believe that somebody else ought to be forced to support their failed lifestyles.

Stop and think about the difference of this “cancer presidency” and the Reagan recovery.  As voters considered re-electing Ronald Reagan, GDP was surging to 8.5 percent.  Under Obama, it’s 1.2 percent and we’re facing a double-dip recession.

Newsbusters has a great documentation of how incredibly propagandist the mainstream media was.  In May, 1984, when the jobs report for Ronald Reagan reported 269,000 jobs, the New York Slimes actually arbitrarily revised it DOWN by 19,000 jobs to 250,000 ostensibly to keep the numbers in increments of 50,000.  So if the New York Times were fairly “reporting” on Obama today, we’d have only 50,000 jobs created, wouldn’t we?  And whereas Obama’s numbers keep getting revised DOWN, Reagan’s for some mysterious reason were being revised UP: the revised jobs report for May, 1984 actually showed growth of 363,000 jobs.   Compare that to Obama’s jobs number above – recognizing that Reagan’s number was when we had a population of 235 million people versus 313 million today – and tell me that Obama isn’t wildly failing the American people.

The worst lies, according to the “lies, damned lies and statistics” proverb, are statistics.  And when liberals control the statistics, you get great news being depicted as lousy news and you get lousy news being depicted as great news.

Your biggest problem in being able to know the truth is that most of our “journalists” are Marxist propagandists who could have easily fit in at TASS during the Soviet days.

Ultimately communist “journalists” blamed seventy years of bad weather for why they couldn’t keep up with Ronald Reagan and an America that was being ran under conservative Republican policies.

And Obama is one of those Marxist ideologues trying to explain away failure and marginalize Reagan.  He makes me SICK with his rabid dishonesty.

Obama keeps demonizing Romney as standing for the “same failed Republican policies of the past.”  JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN’S.

If you want to see “the failed policies of the past” you just take a look at Barack Obama’s utterly failed liberal policies of the last four years.  And as much as Obama has demonized George W. Bush, Barack Obama has never once even in his very best month been anywhere CLOSE to George Bush’s very worst month of unemployment.

Bill O’Reilly interviewed Bill Clinton and asked a question: Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama – who collected the largest revenue?

O’REILLY: I didn’t mind paying you that but do you know between… among you, Obama and Bush who had the highest tax receipts of all three of you? Do you know? Bush. So under prosperity the tax cuts under Bush more money flowed into the federal government.

Bill Clinton didn’t know (or more likely, knew but wouldn’t answer) and shook his head without responding: Bill O’Reilly supplied the answer: George Bush.  And that is because Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

For the record, if Barack Obama were held accountable to the labor participation rate that he inherited from George Bush, unemployment would be well over 11 percent right now.  The only reason that Obama’s unemployment number is as “good” as 8.2 percent is because Obama has destroyed millions of jobs and driven millions of Americans completely out of the work force where they are simply not even counted by the Labor Department.  The fact is that 88 million working-age Americans are not in the work force because of this completely failed presidency.  And the far better U-6 unemployment measurement has unemployment at 14.9%.

For the record, Bush’s U-6 rate was more than five points lower at this point in his presidency as he faced re-election.  To go with a 5.5 percent U-3 rate which is nearly three points lower.  But, hey, whatever we do, let’s not go back to “those failed policies.”

The “failed Republican policies of the past” don’t just refer to George Bush in late 2008 ( Democrats want you to believe that Bush was only president for the last few months of 2008 because the rest of his presidency looked pretty darn good); they refer to Ronald Reagan.

Let me tell you liberal pukes something: Ronald Reagan didn’t fail at NOTHIN’.

I wrote an article describing the grim economic indicators that were facing Ronald Reagan when he took office in 1980.  Jimmy Carter had said of the crisis, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Unlike Jimmy Carter – and at this point it is very obvious to say, unlike Barack Obama – Ronald Reagan had a solution.  Under Reagan’s leadership, the US economy soared into the stratosphere.  Bill Clinton became part of that Reaganomics solution when he acknowledged that “the era of big government is over” and cooperated with the Republicans who had swept both the House and the Senate in a landslide when he too had failed to accept that conservative policies WORK.

It is a solution that Barack Obama has dedicated his entire life to destroying.  Which is why Obama has never and never WILL succeed as president.

If I had Barack Obama’s performance, I would resign.  I would have held a press conference and declared, “I’m sorry.  I thought I had a plan to turn this economy around.  Clearly I was wrong.  It’s time for me to step aside and allow someone with better ideas and better leadership to help the American people.”

But Barack Obama doesn’t give one miserable rat damn about the American people.  All the people whose support Obama rode to victory are the worst impacted by the disgrace of the Obama economy: black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, female unemployment, college-age unemployment are utterly pathetic.  Last month in the “Obama recovery” minorities suffered miserably; this month their suffering got worse.  The unemployment rates for blacks shot up to 14.4 percent (14.8 percent prior to ‘seasonal adjustment’). Barack Obama is to these people as Adolf Hitler was to Germans, promising a government Utopia and producing nothing but abject ruin.

Barack Obama has declared war on the United States of America.  But instead of bullets and bombs, he has waged his war with massive and unsustainable government spending and joblessness.

Real Unemployment Rate Under Obama Over Nineteen Percent (As In FDR-Great Depression Unemployment)

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, after six years of failed FDR policies, unemployment was 20.7%

Obama is campaigning all over boasting that he’s cut the unemployment rate.  They say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.  And Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate is of the most demonic category of lie.

Here’s the reality:

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted

• Download complete trend

	% Employed full time for an employer	% Underemployed	% Unemployed
01/26/2012	64.60	18.40	8.60
01/27/2012	64.40	18.50	8.70
01/28/2012	64.20	18.60	8.60
01/29/2012	64.10	18.70	8.60
01/30/2012	64.20	18.60	8.60
01/31/2012	63.90	18.70	8.60
02/1/2012	63.90	18.80	8.70
02/2/2012	64.00	18.70	8.70
02/3/2012	64.00	18.70	8.70
02/6/2012	64.10	18.70	8.70
02/7/2012	64.10	18.80	8.80
02/8/2012	64.00	18.80	8.90
02/9/2012	64.00	18.90	8.90
02/10/2012	64.00	19.00	8.90
02/11/2012	63.70	19.30	9.10
02/12/2012	63.90	19.20	9.00
02/13/2012	63.90	19.10	8.90
02/14/2012	64.00	19.10	9.00
02/15/2012	64.00	19.00	9.00
02/16/2012	63.80	19.10	9.10

Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Respondents “Employed Full Time for an Employer” are those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Notice that Obama has done NOTHING to bring down the “% underemployed” figure – which counted in the official unemployment statistic when FDR was miserably failing – while he was claiming to bring down unemployment.  Which is another way of saying that there are today more Americans suffering under the Barack Obama experiment in failure than EVER.

Here’s another quote for you:

“I told you so, you God-damn-America dumbasses.” — Michael Eden, almost every day of the last four years.

Obama was hailed as the second coming of FDR by the left:

And we’ve got what we voted for: another massive FDR New Deal failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, most likely followed by a world war.

Only this world war that our new FDR will bring us won’t be nearly as fun due to all the global thermonuclear weapons that will be flying around.

Here are a few more facts that your mainstream media propaganda hasn’t been telling you about:

Congressional budget chief offers dim outlook on economic growth, jobs
By Jim Angle
Published February 01, 2012 | FoxNews.com

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.
 
Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.
 
Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.” 
 
“Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said. 
 
Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement. 
 
“The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”
 
The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year. 
 
The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time. 
 
That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.  “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked. 
 
“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”
 
And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

So why would CBO Director Elmendorf have a prediction that flies in the face of the Obama-media propaganda???

Because – and here you will have to pardon my language – he has the raw “unadjusted” (meaning “unfudged”) statistics to see through the statistical bullcrap that is being put out.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge is another guy who sees through the lens-distorting effect of all the bovine feces.  In commenting about the real plunge in retail sales, Durden said:

The topic of BLS propaganda seasonal adjustments has been discussed extensively here especially in light of January’s NFP beat. We’ll leave it at that. However, we were rather surprised to note that the Census Bureau may have also ramped up its seasonal adjustment “fudge factoring” because when looking at the January headline retail sales data, which naturally was a smoothly continuous line on a Seasonally Adjusted basis, rising from $399.9 billion in December to $401.4 billion in January, something rather odd happened in the Unadjusted data set: the plunge from $459.8 billion in December to $361.4 billion in January, or -$98.5 billion in one month, was the biggest one month drop in retail sales in history. Now we won’t say much on this topic, suffice to say that it would be far more useful if the BLS and Census Bureaus were to open up their models and explain in nuanced detail just what “old normal” adjustments they still incorporate into data sets. Because as many have already noted, seasonal adjustments used for data from 1980 to 2008 when “up” was the only allowed direction for everything, are completely irrelevant and misleading in the New Deleveraging Normal. Which reminds us: Zero Hedge will offer $10,000 to the first BLS employee to share with us the full and complete excel model set, including assumptions, data tables, and comprehensive output parameters that the agency uses to go from input A to output X. We hope that by spending that money we will finally do society a service and open up to everyone just how it is that the BLS adjusts its Non-Farm Payrolls data.

If he actually gets the chance to buy that data, I will give my contribution to Tyler Durden instead of the Republican candidate.  Because the truth will do more to get Obama out of office that any GOP ad ever could.

We’ve heard the phrase “Great Depression” bandied about.  Here are a few facts that people ought to know:

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. [Read about what to before, during and after a deflationary crash] Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

A Wikipedia article provides a few other details that ought to make someone looking at our present day rather uncomfortable:

Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”^[11] The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April. This was still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.^[12]

Together, government and business spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. On the other hand, consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent. Likewise, beginning in mid-1930, a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA.

By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed.^[13] By May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, although wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs.

I’ve pointed out a few things before: first of all, “things are starting to look a little better” is by no rational means whatsoever any kind of indicator that we’re not going to plunge; BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION. 

We’re being kept in the dark and fed on manure just like all the other government-cultivated mushrooms.

And we’re going to pay for it right here in good ol’ God damn America.

The beast is coming.

Danger, Democrats At Work: Obama Twists Into Pretzel, Reid Distances Himself, Pelosi Demands Investigation

Barack Obama – desperately wanting to divert attention away from his failed policies and the terrible economy those failed policies have produced – poured gasoline onto the mosque being planned near Ground Zero and then lit the match.

The White House went from “deeming [the mosque] a local issue that local politicians can and should deal with,” to “endorsing” it, to waffling away from his endorsement to the point of lunacy.

In light of Obama’s pretzel-twisting flip-flopping cowardice, comedian Jon Stewart proposes Obama adopt a new campaign slogan: “Yes we can . . . But should we?”

Harry Reid came out in opposition to Obama’s endorsement, which Obama walked back into a non-endorsing endorsement:

“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Reid’s spokesman in a statement. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”

Which is exactly the position of the right-wing of the Republican Party:

U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner called Obama’s “endorsement” of the center’s construction near Ground Zero troubling.

“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”

Harry Reid is in a fight for his political life, and that may be why he had to actually honestly represent the clear will of 70% of the American people for a change.

Enter Nancy Pelosi, who demands an investigation of those who oppose the mosque her Messiah voted for before he voted against it:

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today called for an investigation of those opposing the mosque being planned for construction a block away from the site of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City that toppled the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhatten and killed nearly 3000 people.

Speaking to reporters in San Francisco, Pelosi at first deferred to New Yorkers on the mosque, calling it an “urban development question” for them to decide.

“I think everybody respects the right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property. The decision though as to how to go forward in New York is up to New York,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi reiterated that New Yorkers should decide in response to a follow-up question about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) differing with President Barack Obama on the construction of the mosque, but then launched into a brief tirade against being questioned on the mosque and demanded an investigation be made into the opposition to the mosque.

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City,” hissed Pelosi.

Audio of Pelosi’s comments was posted by KCBS-AM-FM which ignored Pelosi’s call to investigate the opposition to the mosque in its summary of her remarks–likewise for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Audio of Pelosi calling for an investigation into the opponents of the mosque, and how they are being funded.

Mind you, she’s not calling upon an investigation as to how the mosque is going to be funded, and which possibly hostile and jihadist foreign sources might be involved with the funding.

She’s not looking into these questions:

The Cordoba Initiative has reported less than $20,000 in assets. Where the $100 million for his project would come from is anybody’s guess. Furthermore, it’s fair to ask why, exactly, Imam Rauf has insisted on building the mosque so close to ground zero, and why he wants to unveil it on the 10th anniversary of the attacks. This not an issue of religious freedom, but rather, a question of safety and security.

Here’s another question: the Governor of New York has offered to provide another site for the community center.  And been ignored.  Why won’t the Muslims budge on demanding that they build right next to Ground Zero?

No.  The Speaker of the House of Representatives is demanding that the people representing the 70% of the American people who oppose the mosque should be investigated.

The mosque would be built less than 600 feet from Ground Zero.  On a site that is technically very much a part of Ground Zero, given the fact that it was hit in the 9/11 attack by the landing gear of the plane that slammed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.

If this mosque is built, our worst enemies overseas will rejoice over their victory.  By Islamic tradition, you commemorate a great victory by building a mosque on the site of that victory.

There are over 3,000 mosques in the United States.  Many have been recently built, and many more are presently under construction.  How easy is it to build a Christian church today in an Islamic country?  Try, “impossible.” And that’s even if we don’t try to build one within 600 feet of Mecca.

You want to investigate someone, Nancy?  Investigate Harry Reid.  Investigate the Democrats who are backing away from Obama and from the Ground Zero mosque that he endorsed.  Hell, investigate the voters who decided to elect such a remarkably stupid and evil woman to be the Speaker of the House in the first place.

I find it amazing that Nancy Pelosi felt so free to falsely and maliciously demagogue and demonize Tea Party protesters who were clearly acting within their rights as American citizens, only to now demand an investigation into those who are STILL acting within their rights to oppose an ill-considered mosque being built too close to Ground Zero.

She denounces those who make the mosque a political issue EVEN AS SHE MAKES THE DAMN MOSQUE A POLITICAL ISSUE.

It’s long-passed time we vote these hypocrite fools out of office.

On the “bright side,” at least liberals have finally found a religion that they want to defend and not relentlessly attack.  Nancy and Barry Hussein will fight to the last Democrat to defend Sharia law which cuts off the nose and ears of a Muslim girl for fleeing a pre-arranged marriage.  But where are they with Christian churches, where liberal commissions routinely deny them the right to build right here in the USA? More.  Where are they with St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed in the 9/11 attack, and STILL not allowed to rebuild?

Why is it the tolerant thing to build a mosque near Ground Zero when Muslims created the horror of Ground Zero to begin with?  Why isn’t it tolerant to first rebuild the church that was destroyed by Muslims?  Why are we supposed to passively allow Muslims to lecture us about our “intolerance” when Islam is far and away the most intolerant religion and culture on the face of the earth?

Why don’t we investigate why Nancy Pelosi and Democrats undermine Christianity as a matter of routine, and bow (literally) and scrape before Islam?

Failed President Alert: Economists Say Stimulus Did NOT Help

You wouldn’t mind if I took $862 billion dollars of your money – actually $3.27 TRILLION if truth be told – and totally pissed it away, would you?

No, you don’t mind?  Good.  That’s a relief.  I mean, a lot of people would be a little upset that I’d bankrupted the country and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Obama, the White House, and the Democrats told massive and outrageous lie after massive outrageous lie to sell their load of porkulus crap.  But the American people didn’t believe it: a poll by the New York Times and CBS revealed that only 6% of Americans believed that the Obama stimulus created any jobs at all.

And now the economists are figuring out what the people understood all along:

Economists: The stimulus didn’t help
By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterApril 26, 2010: 3:56 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government’s stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won’t affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring “moderately.”

But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents — 57% — say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE’s respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.

Still, the survey suggested that tight lending conditions remain a concern. Almost half of those polled said the credit crunch hurts their business. To top of page

The Democrat argument is that the economy is doing better; ergo sum the stimulus worked.  The problem is that that’s rather like saying that the economy is doing better; ergo sum the fact that I had a good bowel movement worked.  There’s simply no reason to correlate the one thing with the other.

I would also ask this: name the recession that lasted forever.  The closest we can come is the Great Depression under FDR.  His failed policies prolonged the depression and a lot of needless suffering for seven years.

The other thing I would say is that we are by no means out of the recession that we are in.  There is still abundant evidence to believe that we may very well be headed into a double dip recession – with Obama’s failed policies being completely responsible for that second dip.

Long term, I believe that Obama has doomed this country.  If we can’t undo the damage caused by his ObamaCare boondoggle before it begins to seriously take effect, I think it will amount to the anvil that broke the camel’s back.  And even if we CAN undo ObamaCare, the massive debt this president has imposed on us due to his now demonstrably failed policies will be like a cancer that will eat away at our way of life.

It is possible that there may be a jobless recovery.  But Obama slit the hamstrings of the recovery we COULD have had when he pissed away what will ultimately cost us more than three trillion dollars.  That money – which didn’t create any jobs – is going to consume jobs by way of opportunity costs.  Businesses COULD have used that money to grow and hire; but instead Obama seized it, and poured it down the drain.  And now we get to experience the joys of the gift that keeps on giving as we pay billions of dollars in interest payments, which is money that again COULD have been used to create jobs but never will.

Whether the economy looks a little better or a lot worse than it did, we will not even possibly be able to grow under the massive debt load that Obama has forced upon us with his massively failed stimulus.

We need to hold him accountable for his failure, or he will continue to stockpile one disaster on top of another.

Obama Calls For Tolerance And Civility While His Rabid Rodents Throw Hate Bombs

I hate Obama’s Marxist policies, certainly enough.  But the thing I despise most about Barack Obama is his galling personal hypocrisy.

He is a man who makes a false promise that he never keeps, and then continually congratulates himself about those very same promises.  He promised transparency that he never delivered, but keeps talking it up as though he really DIDN’T have  his meetings on “transparency” closed to the public and the media; and as though he really DID put the health care negotiations on C-SPAN like he promised at least 8 times on video; as though his ObamaCare WEREN’T so secretive that even senior Democrats admitted they were completely in the dark; and as though Obama really WEREN’T denying the media of access far worse than his predecessors had ever done.  He patted himself on the back for getting lobbyists out of Washington as if his administration DIDN’T have at least30 of them on the payroll; and attacked lobbyists at his state of the union as if he DIDN’T have a schmoochy meeting scheduled with them for the very next day.  He promised to end earmarks, then signed a bill that had nearly 9,000 of them – and just instructed Democrats to submit their earmark requests for the upcoming budget even as he told the country that he was “calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”  And all I can say when Obama talks about reforming earmarks now is that it is too damn bad we didn’t elect John McCain.

The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well.  Obama promised to close Gitmo.  He lied.  Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now.  He lied.  Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence.  And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.

Is it any wonder that he is the most polarizing president we have ever seen?

But Obama’s signature lie was his cynical promise from the most radically leftist Senator in Congress to transcend the political divide and bring the parties together.  Democrats, of course, blame Republicans; but it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to do it, was it?  The president who mockingly told Republicans “I won” when they tried to talk to him, and who repeatedly demonized Republicans for their “failed policies of the past,” is now actually upset that Republicans would take anything approaching the same attitude with him that he took with them.

We’re not supposed to be able to talk about HIS failed policies after he attacked us about a hundred million times with the very same claim?

Is it any wonder that his polls are now even LOWER than they were before he gave that deceitful state of the union?

Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them.  Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.

Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):

Obama at “national prayer breakfast”: The President calls for tolerance and civility

At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.

The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.

“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”

He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.

Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.

In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?

There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.”  It’s not far from the truth.

Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)?  Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad?  Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?

Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.

It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes.  Just for once in their lives.

Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:

New York Slimes I mean Times columnist Frank Rich:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.

It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result.  To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.

Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:

Chris Matthews: Far Right Republicans Like Cambodian Regime (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM   |   Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM

Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.

“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”

Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.

“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”

Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.

So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.

And speaking of bigoted turds….

Rachel Maddog I mean Maddow:

Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
By Noel Sheppard
Sat, 02/06/2010

Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.

Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”

From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).

What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel.  But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.

And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.

Cited from a recently written article:

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.

Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing.  And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.

The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.

And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.

Democrat Points Out Fact That No One In The Obama Administration Knows Anything About Actually Running A Business

This is coming from Senator Blanche Lincoln, who basically is just beginning to realize that she doomed her re-election bid by helping Democrats try to jam ObamaCare down her constinuency’s throats.  But a Democrat is a Democrat, and using the Democrat logic that a single Republican voting for one of their bills makes it “bipartisan,” it is therefore a “bipartisan” recognition that Obama’s White House is completely business illiterate:

Lincoln presses Obama on party ‘extremes’ at Q and A
By Jordan Fabian – 02/03/10 12:00 PM ET

Centrist Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) on Wednesday asked arguably the most contentious question during a discussion between Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, hitting at conservatives and liberals.

Lincoln, who faces a tough reelection fight, asked Obama to push back against “people at the extremes” of both parties, especially against Democrats “who want extremes.”

She also took a swipe at Obama’s White House, referencing a constituent who “fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday.”

Lincoln faces a steep reelection bid in 2010. She trails the likely Republican nominee, Rep. John Boozman, by 23 points and has only a 27 percent approval rating in a recent poll.

Obama responded by defending steps his administration has taken to right the economy and said “Moving forward, Blanche, what you’re going to hear from some folks…[is that] the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we did before the crisis.”

The president reiterated that he would not return to past policies.

“If the price of certainty is for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression…the result is going to be the same.”

But Obama conceded that “Blanche is right that we sometimes get bogged down in ideology.”

Obama’s last statement immediately above reveals the mockery of his core promise as a candidate for president that he would be post-partisan and would reach across the divide.  He has done absolutely nothing of the sort, and has instead created the most poisonous partisan environment ever recorded in a president’s first year.

But I want to return to Blanche Lincoln’s “fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday.”

Ouch.  The truth hurts when you stink on steroids.

It’s significant that this is a bipartisan statement which Democrats now share with Republicans.  Democrats were shrilly running every campaign against George Bush.  Oh, everything was about “Bush’s failed policies.”

Now Democrats are running away from Barack Hussein just as frantically.  And now all of a sudden everything is about Obama’s failed policies.

A full year into his presidency, Obama has lost more jobs in a single year than ANY president ever lost in a ANY year since records started being kept in 1940.

And at the very same time he’s destroying jobs while offering the most pathetic assertions to the contrary, he is presiding over the most insane deficit-laden government spending spree in the history of the human race.

Businesses understand that in the real world, you can’t avoid disaster by printing your own money.

And so you’ve got the DemocRATS jumping off the sinking ship.

You’ve just GOT to love the poetic justice.

Blanche Lincoln also has the virtue of being completely correct: the most “anti-business” administration in our nation’s history has the least actual real world business experience of any administration in history.

From National Journal Magazine:

Critics say that one area where the Obama team lacks luster and diversity is in the realm of business. Few of his key people can point to significant business experience. In 2001, Bush had four former CEOs (including his vice president) in the Cabinet: career Texas oil man Donald Evans at Commerce; Treasury’s O’Neill, who had run Alcoa for almost 15 years; and Defense’s Rumsfeld, who had spent some 15 years at the helm of three businesses, including the international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle. Cheney had been CEO of the oil-services and construction giant Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Even Bill Clinton recruited from business: Thomas (Mack) McLarty, CEO of the natural-gas company Arkla, became his chief of staff, and Hazel O’Leary, an executive vice president of a Minnesota utility firm, was his Energy secretary. (They failed to distinguish themselves in those posts, however.)

It’s actually far, far worse than that.

You want to see how the Obama administration compares to others in having people with actual business experience making decisions and running things?

Here are the percentages of people with private sector business experience serving in previous administrations:

T. Roosevelt…….. 38%
Taft………………….40%
Wilson …………….. 52%
Harding…………….49%
Coolidge………….. 48%
Hoover…………….. 42%
F. Roosevelt……… 50%
Truman……………..50%
Eisenhower………. 57%
Kennedy………….. 30%
Johnson…………….47%
Nixon………………. 53%
Ford………………… 42%
Carter………………. 32%
Reagan……………..56%
GH Bush………….. 51%
Clinton …………….. 39%
GW Bush…………. 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is…………..

Obama……………. 8% !!!

Yep! Thats right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what’s best for GM…Chrysler… Wall Street… and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society…the one with the most successful economic system in world history… stand and talk about business when he’s never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??!

And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.! They’ve spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs….or as “community organizers” ..when they should have been in an employment line.

So when Blanche Lincoln points out that nobody in the Obama administration has any idea what it’s like to actually make a payroll, she’s completely correct.

What we have is a bunch of people who have either worked for egghead academia or the government their entire lives frantically pushing the buttons and pulling the levers of government to somehow stimulate businesses that none of them know anything whatsoever about.

This Just In: Obama May Have Lost 824,000 More Jobs Than Previously Reported

Whenever numbers look bad for Democrats, the media invariably reports them as “unexpected.” Well, report THIS, mainstream media:

Barry Hussein just broke his own record for failure.

Previously, it had been reported that Obama had lost 4.1 million jobs – presiding over the greatest number of job losses under any president in any year since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started reporting jobless numbers in 1940.

But now we’re finding out that Obama pointed to the center field wall, took a radical swing, and sent unemployment soaring to nearly FIVE MILLION jobs lost with his disastrous failed policies.

There’s not much being reported about this yet, but what there is is BAD for Barry:

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) — The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

The Drudge Report filed this story under the headline, “MANIPULATE: FEDS MAY LOSE 824,000 JOBS IN ‘REVISION’.”  Which creates the sense that something very suspicious was going on to “manipulate” job numbers to make them look less awful than they actually were.

We have this found via Zero Hedge:

From the BLS:In accordance with usual practice, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is announcing its preliminary estimates of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 5, 2010, with the publication of the January 2010 Employment Situation news release.

Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For national CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus two-tenths of one percent of total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2009 total nonfarm employment of 824,000 (0.6 percent).

If you read the conclusion of the Zero Hedge article, you will see an example as to how extreme the disconnect between the actual state of the economy and the stock market has become.

In any event, we find that normally the error that requires correction/revision is .02; but for some reason under Obama the error is .06 — which is 300% larger than the previous ten year average.

Rush Limbaugh said that he had previously stated that he thought unemployment was higher, and that the Obama White House was monkeying with the numbers to make it appear that unemployment was at or under 10%.

Having watched Obama create a category of “created or saved jobs” out of thin air that no economist had ever seen before, and watching the mainstream media report that made-up statistic as if it were gospel; having watched Obama’s “created or saved” job numbers being based on such asinine data that a single $1000 lawnmower was recorded to have saved 50 jobs; having watched the White House engage in rampantly dishonest reporting on its job numbers; having discovered that those bogus job numbers were reported as having been “created or saved” in phony congressional districts and in phony zip code regions, well, let’s just say that I have every reason to believe that this incredibly dishonest White House is capable of anything.

I’m not one iota surprised that the BLS is dumping this news on the typical government bad-news dumping day of Friday.

In any event, you can bet that our 10% unemployment rate is about to take a monster hit.

From a quick calculation, the unemployment rate could all of a sudden be as high as 12%.

It was only yesterday that I wrote this without knowing how right I was:

I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

I just didn’t know that I would literally have my instincts proven right within a matter of three days.

What McCain-Palin Need To Do From Tonight’s Debate Till Election Day

John McCain is being saddled with the anger and fear of voters over the financial collapse, according to most polls.  Up until this week, neither President Bush, Senator McCain, Governor Sarah Palin, or most Republicans bothered to respond to the repeated Democrat charges that this fiasco was the result of the “failed policies of the last eight years.”

That perception needs to be changed by through a deliberate and sustained effort.  It needs to begin tonight.  And it needs to continue until November 4.

Barack Obama has been arguing that “guilt by association” is invalid.  But Obama’s central charge against John McCain amounts to pure guilt by association: John McCain is NOT George Bush, and he has never BEEN George Bush.  His entire career stands as a screaming testimony to the fact that he is very much his own man.

John McCain needs to find a few popular measures that President Bush supported and ask Barack Obama, “Do you oppose this because President Bush was for it?  How about this?  And this?”

When Barack Obama again and again says that John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, McCain needs to remind voters that Barack Obama has voted with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid fully 97% of the time.  He needs to remind voters that Barack Obama is the personification of a Democrat-controlled Congress that has a 9% approval rating – the worst in American history; worse than the 12% rating Congress had in 1979.  Meanwhile, even Barack Obama has voted with Bush 40% of the time, and more conservative Democrats like Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu have voted with Bush over 70% of the time.

Given the fact that Democrats are likely to not only continue to hold power – and even expand their power to a filibuster-proof majority -this economy cannot afford the domination of tax-and-spend socialist liberals in total control of our government.

John McCain and Sarah Palin need to examine Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Obama claims that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut; the Republicans need to ask Obama if he actually believes that every single American pays taxes, such that 95% of Americans would receive a cut, and 5% would face a steep increase.  Do Barack Obama’s two little girls pay taxes?  How can he possibly give a “cut” to 95% of Americans?  In reality, Barack Obama is using the IRS tax code to give at least 30% and as many as 40% of American tax filers who DON’T pay federal income taxes what amounts to a welfare check.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.  Republicans need to point out that Barack Obama will heavily increase the taxes of small business owners and people who invest in jobs and supply the money this country needs in order to grow and expand.

When you tax small business owners, they lay off employees; when you tax investors, they shelter their money.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama wants to give away another $845 billion dollars of American taxpayer money to the poor of the world in his Global Poverty Act.  It would cost each citizen at least $2500.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama wants to massively socialize the American health care system – which represents about a quarter of the American economy.  He makes a lot of promises, but the costs would be staggering.  Massachusetts passed a law mandating universal coverage that promised to lower costs in utopian fashion; it is now facing $400 million in cost overruns in small state population in a short period of time.  Barack Obama’s plan would be the same sort of disaster on a far more massive scale.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama is trying to blame President Bush and Republicans for the financial disaster when Democrats are all over it.  John McCain needs to point out that past Obama advisor Franklin Raines was involved in massive fraud and chicanery of Fannie Mae just a couple years ago.  He needs to point out that Obama advisers – and lifelong Democrats – Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick raided well over $300 million in bonus money from Fannie Mae even as the agency was crumbling.  McCain needs to point out that Republicans DID try to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which held over $5 trillion in mortgage assets – but that Democrats repeatedly blocked those attempts at regulation in the name of keeping the flow of mortgage loans available to poor and minority home buyers who couldn’t repay their obligations.  John McCain needs to point out that he himself prophetically warned the American people of this crisis two years ago when something could have been done to prevent this fiasco.  McCain needs to point out that Barack Obama himself has personally been deeply in the pockets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – as well as corrupt and negligent Lehman Bros – at a rate that goes far beyond anyone else in Congress.  And that his relationship as an instrumental part in securing these terrible subprime loans with Fannie Mae go back to his days as a radical ACORN organizer.

John McCain needs to use Barney Frank as the poster child of Democratic negligence over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank – who had an inappropriate (homo)sexual relationship with a key Fannie Mae official even when his Congressional committee had direct oversight in regulating the agency.  Barney Frank – who said for five years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were healthy, and who led the Democratic fight against the very sort of regulation Democrats now claim the Republicans are guilty of having been opposed to.  Barney Frank – the leading overseer of GSEs for the last two years – was continuing to claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine as recently as July 14 of this year.  And John McCain needs to point out to the world that Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s stock crashed 90% while Democrats had direct control and direct oversight of these massive GSEs.

And that sort of corruption and incompetence is not what this economy needs right now.

Further, John McCain needs to point out that Barack Obama hasn’t merely had radical associations, but radical alliances.  Barack Obama spent 23 years steeped in the worldview of a radical, racist, anti-American pastor and church.  Barack Obama is the first “God damn America!” candidate for President.  And Barack Obama was more than just “palling around” with terrorist bomber William Ayers – in his capacity as a member of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge board, Barack Obama was directly in charge of administering funding in support of William Ayers radical Marxist educational initiatives.  Barack Obama didn’t merely “associate” with a terrorist who did something bad when Barack was merely 8 years old; Barack Obama officially partnered with William Ayers as a grown man as recently as 2001 to put “more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

And that sort of radical activity is not something that either this country or this economy needs right now.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “I believe that this war is lost.”  And Barack Obama would have ensured that the war would have in fact been lost had he been President.  Obama talks about the loss of American prestige; does he genuinely believe that American troops slinking home in defeat with an emboldened terrorist enemy following us home would improve our international prestige?  John McCain needs to link Harry Reid’s proclamation of defeat with Barack Obama’s determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of success.

That defeatist mentality is not something that this country can afford right now.  As costly as a war is, the United States cannot afford to lose – and we would have lost had Barack Obama recalled the troops in defeat as he wanted to do three years ago.

Finally, John McCain needs to lead this nation to the conclusion that Barack Obama – the most radical, the most inexperienced, the most untested – candidate for President in this nation’s history, is not what either this country or this economy need right now.

How ‘Failed Policies’ Of Democrats Were Responsible For Financial Crisis

Why should anyone blame Democrats for the housing finance crisis?  Because they laid virtually all the landmines that would eventually explode in the first place, and then they wouldn’t allow Republicans to reform or even regulate the impending disaster before it occurred, that’s why.

From the New York Times in September 30, 1999:

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

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.” . . .

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” . . .

The LA Times writes on May 31, 1999 that:

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites….

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . . .

Another article in the New York TImes from September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .

This reform – and another in 2005/06 – were blocked by Democrats who threatened to filibuster the bill in the Senate.

In that 2003 New York Times article, we find the extent of Republicans’ concerns, and of Democrats’ intransigence:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats such as Watt and Maxine Waters played the race card to label any effort to prevent poor and black families from buying homes they couldn’t afford as racist.

But when the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator as a direct result of Democrats’ policies, Nancy Pelosi trots and says:

“The — what we have now is a manmade disaster, a disaster that sprang — comes from the Bush failed policies, the failure of the Bush administrations to steward our economy in a responsible way.”

I am telling you, if you vote for Democrats in November, you will be putting the very people who caused this disaster in power, and you will be entrusting the people who created a crisis in charge of averting the very crisis they caused.  By putting these irresponsible demagogues in charge of our economy during one of the most vulnerable periods in our nations’ history, you will in effect be saying, “I want the Great Depression.  I want my children to suffer.”

Nancy Pelosi Partisan Attack Caused Republican Bailout Revolt

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan ideologue shrew to her very core.  She just can’t help herself.

Even as she demanded that 100 Republicans in the House join her in a bipartisan effort, she viciously attacked Republicans and blamed them for pretty much everything.  She’s out saying, “The — what we have now is a manmade disaster, a disaster that sprang — comes from the Bush failed policies, the failure of the Bush administrations to steward our economy in a responsible way.”  And she’s ostensibly calling for bipartisan cooperation?  I don’t know any other way to put it: Screw her.

The GOP House leaders just had a press conference.  House Minority leader John Boehner pointedly stated that Nancy Pelosis’s partisan speech poisoned the Republican conference.  And House Minority WHIP Eric Cantor – holding a copy of Pelosi’s prissy little tirade – flat out stated that the reason the bipartisan effort failed was due entirely to Pelosi’s partisan rant.  You just don’t do that when you need the other side.

Republicans said they were on the verge of having the votes to pass the thing.  And then Nancy Pelosi opened her poisonous mouth and put political ideology ahead of the interests of the nation.

Some 93 Democrats – 40% of the Democrats in the House – voted against the bill.  This is a clear failure of Nancy Pelosi’s leadership.  She is the most failed House Majority Leader of the most failed Congress in History.

what are you going to do the next time you need Republicans’ cooperation to pass important legislation, Nancy?  Insult their mommas?