Obama Poisoning The Water For Trump Overseas: Barack Obama Is A Demonic Slanderer Even By His OWN Demonic Standard

I want you to first read about something that Bush said once – in an incredibly oblique reference that may not have even intended Obama and CERTAINLY did not name him – and the Obama campaign’s and the Democrat Party’s reaction to that incredibly oblique reference.  And then I want to contrast that with the vile demonization that Barack Obama is using to poison the world against D0nald Trump and THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF IT ELECTS TRUMP as he takes his campaign of hate overseas.

On May 16, 2008 the New York Times – hardly a partial, objective source friendly to Bush or to Republicans – printed this article:

Bush Speech Criticized as Attack on Obama
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGMAY 16, 2008

JERUSALEM — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to denounce those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” — a remark that was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should talk directly with countries like Iran and Syria.

Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and the White House said his remarks were not aimed at the senator, though they created a political firestorm in Washington nonetheless.

In a lengthy speech intended to promote the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president invoked the emotionally volatile imagery of World War II to make the case that talking to extremists was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The president was alluding to Senator William E. Borah, an Idaho Republican noted for his powers of oratory and his isolationist views. In 1938, when Hitler was gobbling up parts of Europe, Borah expressed admiration for him, and in 1939 he did indeed lament that he had not been able to talk to Hitler before the Nazi invasion of Poland.

The Obama campaign issued an angry response to Mr. Bush’s statement. In an e-mail statement to reporters, the senator denounced Mr. Bush for using the 60th anniversary of Israel to “launch a false political attack,” adding, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Other Democrats leapt to Mr. Obama’s defense, among them Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who accused Mr. Bush of taking politics overseas.

“The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge,” Mr. Emanuel said in a statement. “President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head.”

The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said the comment was not a reference to Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush was simply reiterating his own longstanding views.

“I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you — that is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Ms. Perino told reporters here.

[…]

I read through the entire article, and found no other reference that even Bush’s harshest critiques attributed to an attack against Obama on foreign soil that the Democrats claim would be evil beyond the pale and no president worthy of the office would engage in such behavior.

Now, while I would argue that “if the damn shoe fits, put it on your demon-clawed feet and WEAR them, but otherwise shut up” applies here.  Even the New York SLIMES admits that “Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name.”  And it is such an oblique mention at best it is impossible for anyone to prove that Bush actually intended Obama.

Mind you, in spite of Obama’s outright lies to the contrary, history now proves that Obama actually DID negotiate with terrorists and radicals and do every damn thing he said there was no way he would do.

Obama has a longstanding tradition of being THE worst and most despicable HYPOCRITE who EVER lived.  So he has made quite a habit of doing what he and his campaign said was so vile.

So in any event, we have from the Democrat Party and from Obama an acknowledgement that any president who criticizes an opposition candidate for president while overseas is worse than a piece of roach poop.

So let us now see what our “Whatever-is-worse-than-roach-poop-in-Chief has said about Donald Trump:

• May 26, 2016: Nothing stops politics this election season — not even the water’s edge.While traveling overseas on official business Thursday, President Obama couldn’t resist wading into political matters back home, sparking controversy by saying foreign leaders are “rattled” by the rise of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.Obama, saying leaders have “good reason” to feel that way, made the remarks on the sidelines of a Group of Seven economic summit in Japan.“They are rattled by it — and for good reason,” Obama said. “Because a lot of the proposals he has made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines.” […]

  Obama, meanwhile, was criticized for his remarks by other Republicans, with one calling them “incredibly irresponsible” given the context.

  “When the president of the United States goes overseas he’s representing the country,” Josh Holmes, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said on Fox News. “It is remarkably irresponsible and remarkably unpresidential for him to weigh in on a domestic political battle and effectively undermine one of the candidates who could replace him next January.”

  “In front of the world community and effectively in front of all the world leaders, saying someone is essentially unfit for office is an incredibly irresponsible move for the president of the United States,” Holmes said.

You can see how the same mainstream media that so demonically blasted Bush for his incredibly opaque-at-worst reference now takes pleasure in Obama slandering Trump overseas. It’s not like these people are unrelentingly biased or anything.

What Obama did was reckless and unpresidential.  It was wrong – and it was wrong by Obama’s very own words.  But not only did he not quit doing it, he ESCALATED his vicious and unpresidential behavior.  Witness what he just did today while standing right next to the Prime Minister of Singapore addressing a supposedly overseas and international agreement (TPP):

• August 2, 2016: Singapore’s prime minister visited the White House today to pitch the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and discuss other issues, but his appearance was overshadowed by Donald Trump.Prime Minister Lee and President Obama appeared before media as part of an official state visit to Washington, D.C. by the Singaporean leader. He cited economics, security, and political stability in the Asia-Pacific region all as reasons why the United States should pass TPP as soon as possible.Lee spoke specifically about the strategic interests that the United States maintains and indirectly referenced the balancing of power that America must maintain with China. He also expressed his neutral stance on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

  Obama also pitched the deal but did not stay neutral on the election.

  “The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president,” Obama said, adding, “The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job.”

  Obama was referring to Trump’s ongoing feud with Khizr Khan, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention about his son, a muslim and a U.S. soldier who lost his life in combat. He may also have been referring to Trump’s recent confusion over the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

  Many headlines coming out of the press conference focused on these comments, and not the TPP.

The ONLY individual who has now PROVEN he is “unfit to be the president” is the abject disgrace who is currently holding the damn job.

I want you to understand something, Democrat: if the American people elect Donald Trump for president, Barack Obama just personally flushed you and your entire country down the toilet.  This is slash-and-burn at its WORST.

Given the way our Traitor-in-Chief just characterized what may be President Donald Trump, how would Russia and China not be within their rights to attack the United States citing Obama’s own words that Trump is unstable and a direct threat to world peace???

Barack Obama just stated, “If Donald Trump is elected, I want America wiped out in World War III.”  Because that is how much that wicked fool truly despises this country.  He is all but calling for every other nation to do everything it can to exploit Donald Trump, to boycott him, to weaken him, to destroy him – and the nation that elected him and the people who live here in the process.

I think of the words from Darwinist Adolf Hitler, who had a similar view about destroying his own country if it didn’t pursue his warped vision of it:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

That is EXACTLY the wicked spirit that Barack Obama is pursuing.  Let me paraphrase:

“If the American people are not decent enough and are not sufficiently intelligent to offer Hillary Clinton for its own existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

Barack Obama just invited the world to wipe America out if the American people choose Trump.

He is a wicked man.  And Hillary Clinton has promised to be even MORE wicked in trying to replace him.

Hillary attacked Donald Trump for his sarcastic reference regarding Russia and her more than thirty thousand illegally purged emails.  The claim is that Donald Trump is cozy with Russia and with Putin.  But the last I heard, It was HILLARY CLINTON and her vile criminal front otherwise known as the Clinton Foundation that sold America’s uranium (weakening our nuclear arsenal while strengthening Russia’s) to our enemy.

Hillary Clinton had an interview with Fox News correspondent Chris Wallace and as a result of her outright lies ABOUT her lies even the leftist Washington Post gave her FOUR PINNOCHIOS – the worst possible rating for untruthfulness.  Even uberliberal correspondent Ron Fornier, writing for the uberliberal Atlantic, is openly asking the question, “Why Can’t Hillary Stop Lying?”  And Obama was ostensibly responding to what Obama said about the Gold Star Muslim father of a slain American soldier and demonized Donald Trump: what does Obama have to say about the multiple Gold Star family members who have maintained for years that Hillary Clinton looked them right in the eyes and lied to their faces???  Just how in the hell and on what damn planet is Hillary Clinton not “unfit” to be president or even be allowed to freely walk the streets apart from an unrelenting double-standard and perversion of the law???

I know that if Donald Trump is elected president and ANY nation does ANYTHING, it will be because Barack Obama went out to “community organize” against him and against the American people and the nation that elected him because Obama is nothing more than a butthurt malignant narcissist failure.

Terrorism will skyrocket nearly 2,000 percent under Barack Obama’s failed watch.  Our economy is in shambles by any legitimate measure, including the worst labor participation rate in my lifetime and an economy that is doing so poorly we’re having the worst “wreckovery” going back to World War II and we’ve got less home ownership in American history (it is THE lowest in the 51-years they have even been keeping the damn statistic).  Meanwhile Barack Obama’s ObamaCare is an economy- and healthcare-shattering FIASCO.

And this ontological FOOL actually has the tiny little cockroach testicles to claim that somebody ELSE is “unfit” to be president.

Personally, for me, the best argument that Donald Trump will be a great president actually comes in the form of the fact that the very worst president in American history, who just proved he passionately hates this country and everyone who lives in it, says that Trump will be a bad president.  Because every single THING Barack Obama believes is profoundly WRONG.

 

 

 

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?

What Do McChrystal And BP Have In Common – Aside From Fact That Both Were Democrat Supporters?

The following article by Mark Steyn is brilliant.  My title isn’t an accurate summary of Steyn’s point (but maybe it got you to read an article you otherwise wouldn’t have read!).

It is certainly beyond hilarious that pro-Obama Democrat Stanley McChrystal and pro-Obama BP are now on the outs in a cloud of self-destruction, while George Bush’s Secretary of Defense and George Bush’s general have been called upon to save the day.

But the real meat of the article gets to the heart of one issue: Barack Obama is an empty suit who stands for nothing beyond self-promoting Barack Obama.

Published: June 25, 2010
Updated: 10:57 a.m.
Learning the rules of an unengaged president
By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist

What do Gen. McChrystal and British Petroleum have in common? Aside from the fact that they’re both Democratic Party supporters.

Or they were. Stanley McChrystal is a liberal who voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his HQ TV. Which may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone: They’ll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The management of BP were unable to vote for Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their “Beyond Petroleum” marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-Left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of cap-and-trade. BP was the Democrats’ favorite oil company. They were to Obama what Total Fina Elf was to Saddam.

But what do McChrystal’s and BP’s defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain’s Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was “a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year.” If finding Obama “not engaged” is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?

Only the other day, Florida Sen. George Lemieux attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America’s overpaid, overmanned and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something on the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States: Weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their “super-skimmers”: Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Sen. Lemieux found the president unengaged, and uninformed. “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers,” reported the senator.

He doesn’t seem to know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t care. “It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is no heart at all,” wrote Richard Cohen in The Washington Post last week. “For instance, it’s not clear that Obama is appalled by China’s appalling human-rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia.

The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.

“This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?”

Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.

And even today Cohen is still giving President Whoisthisguy a pass.

After all, whatever he feels about “China’s appalling human-rights record” or “continued repression in Russia,” Obama is not directly responsible for it. Whereas the U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan are happening on his watch – and the border villagers killed by unmanned drones are being killed at his behest. Cohen calls the president “above all, a pragmatist,” but with the best will in the world you can’t stretch the definition of “pragmatism” to mean “lack of interest.”

“The ugly truth,” wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, “is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it.”

Well, that’s certainly ugly, but is it the truth? Afghanistan, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the Democrats’ war, the one they allegedly supported, the one the neocons’ Iraq adventure was an unnecessary distraction from. Granted the Dems’ usual shell game – to avoid looking soft on national security, it helps to be in favor of some war other than the one you’re opposing – Candidate Obama was an especially ripe promoter. In one of the livelier moments of his campaign, he chugged down half a bottle of Geopolitical Viagra and claimed he was hot for invading Pakistan.

Then he found himself in the Oval Office, and the dime-store opportunism was no longer helpful. But, as Friedman puts it, “no one knew how to get out of it.” The “pragmatist” settled for “nuance”: He announced a semisurge plus a date for withdrawal of troops to begin. It’s not “victory,” it’s not “defeat,” but rather a more sophisticated mélange of these two outmoded absolutes: If you need a word, “quagmire” would seem to cover it.

Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and the Pakistanis, on the one hand, and Britain and the other American allies heading for the check-out, on the other, all seem to have grasped the essentials of the message, even if Friedman and the other media Obammyboppers never quite did. Karzai is now talking to Islamabad about an accommodation that would see the most viscerally anti-American elements of the Taliban back in Kabul as part of a power-sharing regime. At the height of the shrillest shrieking about the Iraqi “quagmire,” was there ever any talk of hard-core Saddamite Baathists returning to government in Baghdad?

To return to Cohen’s question: “Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?” Well, he’s a guy who was wafted ever upward – from the Harvard Law Review to state legislator to United States senator – without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. “Who is this guy?” Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-40s with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. “What are his core beliefs?” It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It’s the “nothing else” that the likes of Cohen are belatedly noticing.

Wasn’t he kind of unengaged by the health care debate? That’s why, for all his speeches, he could never quite articulate a rationale for it. In the end, he was happy to leave it to the Democratic Congress and, when his powers of persuasion failed, let them ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Likewise, on Afghanistan, his attitude seems to be “I don’t want to hear about it.” Unmanned drones take care of a lot of that, for a while. So do his courtiers in the media: Did all those hopeychangers realize that Obama’s war would be run by Bush’s defense secretary and Bush’s general?

Hey, never mind: the Moveon.org folks have quietly removed their celebrated “General Betray-us” ad from their website. Cindy Sheehan, the supposed conscience of the nation when she was railing against Bush from the front pages, is an irrelevant kook unworthy of coverage when she protests Obama. Why, a cynic might almost think the “anti-war” movement was really an anti-Bush movement, and that they really don’t care about dead foreigners after all. Plus ça change you can believe in, plus c’est la même chose.

Except in one respect. There is a big hole where our strategy should be.

It’s hard to fight a war without war aims, and, in the end, they can only come from the top. It took the oil spill to alert Americans to the unengaged president. From Moscow to Tehran to the caves of Waziristan, our enemies got the message a lot earlier – and long ago figured out the rules of unengagement.

Too bad we elected a president who has a narcissism complex where his conscience should be and a vacuum where his soul should be.

Gulf Disaster: Clearly No Big Deal To Obama

Question: if your house were on fire, and your family was trapped inside, how many days would it take for you to decide if you wanted to accept someone else’s help to put it out?

If you’re Barry Hussein, the answer is at least two months.  And more like three.

Which is another way of saying that Barry Hussein doesn’t give a damn about America unless there’s something (like a Marxist cap-and-trade agenda) in it for him.

Breaking: Obama Administration Only Accepted Help From 5 Countries Out of 28 That Offered Assistance
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, June 19, 2010, 3:30 PM

Just last weekend Barack Obama announced that the BP oil spill was like 9-11.
This weekend as President Obama went golfing and to the ballgame, the Obama State Department was STILL in the review process on deciding which countries the US would accept help from… 60 days after the disaster!

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

The State Department posted this on their website.
28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.
Page 1-

Page 2-

Page 3-

Page 4-

Hat Tip Stacy

After 60 days the Obama State Department is still “considering” which countries to accept help from.
Unbelievable.

What on earth excuse does Obama have for refusing to accept all these offers of help?

Oh, well.  What’s a few billion tarballs on a few hundred beaches?  What are a few million dead pelicans, dolphins, and myriad other creatures?  What are a few hundred thousand jobs?

It’s not really a big deal.

So chill out and don’t worry.  Be like your president.  Maybe play a lot of golf.

Liberals Caught Video Surveilling Children In Their Own Homes

Remember how the left came emotionally unglued over George Bush approving the eavesdropping of phone calls to the US from known terrorists overseas?

You’d have thought that Bush had gone to the Library of Congress and personally torn apart the original copy of the Constitution.  And then defecated on the pieces.

Of course, monitoring the phone calls from foreign terrorists wanting to have an obviously nice, harmless chat with someone in America was terrible.  And of course, liberal school districts using cameras to record children in the privacy of their own bedrooms and bathrooms in their own homes is perfectly appropriate.

Or not.

I go with not.

Big Teacher Is Watching You
February 24, 2010 – by Jeff Schreiber

My laptop’s webcam now has a postage stamp covering it. Does yours?

This week, a district court judge in Philadelphia, PA, had to do the unthinkable: issue an order preventing a school district from further remote reactivation of webcams on laptop computers issued to nearly 2,000 high school students, a practice which has left many students and parents wondering whether school administrators had unfettered access into their homes and lives.

Just last week, a high school sophomore named Blake Robbins filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Lower Merion School District, the wealthy destination district on Philadelphia’s prestigious Main Line which gave the world numerous doctors, lawyers, financial managers — and Kobe Bryant. The school district, Robbins alleges, has been spying on students and students’ families in their own homes by means of remote access to webcam-equipped laptop computers provided to all students through an initiative funded largely by federal and state grants.

Neither students nor parents were provided notice by Lower Merion School District about the remote-access capability when the computers were distributed or at any other time. Robbins and his family only discovered the capability when the 15-year-old was approached at school by an assistant principal at Harriton High School and accused of engaging in “improper behavior” in his own home.

A photograph captured by Robbins’ laptop webcam was offered as evidence.  The “improper behavior” which so concerned school administrators? Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko pointed to what looked like prescription drugs being held by Robbins in the photograph and voiced concern that he was selling drugs; in reality, Robbins was eating his favorite candy, Mike & Ikes, while at the computer in his own home.

Lower Merion School District, Robbins claims, has violated a long list of federal and state laws designed to protect personal privacy and stored information, including but not limited to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, §1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law. And then, of course, there’s the matter of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Even for those who do not read a bona fide right to privacy into the Constitution, considering that the Fourth Amendment was written and drafted by our founders in response to the practice so many years before of British soldiers who conducted warrantless searches of colonists’ homes in search of signs of smuggling, that this case features an overreaching school district peering into private homes without notice or consent, all in search of “improper behavior” of the sort that Robbins was confronted with, should be cause for alarm for anyone who values liberty and individual freedom.

In the week which has followed the filing of the complaint, a number of students have come forward to say that either they noticed a green light indicating an active camera illuminate arbitrarily, or that they may not have noticed the light but often have the laptop open in their bedrooms, or even in their bathrooms, where music from iTunes can make showering more enjoyable for anyone who belts out Lady Gaga tunes into their shampoo bottle.

Most curious, though, has been the response from Lower Merion School District. Almost two days after the class action complaint was filed, the district released a statement on its website admitting to nearly every allegation made by Blake Robbins and his attorney.

By saying that “[t]he laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops,” the district admitted that it did indeed have the capability to remotely access portals into students’ private lives.  By saying that “[t]his feature has been deactivated effective today,” the district admitted that the capability had indeed been active. By saying that “the feature was activated by the District’s security and technology departments,” administrators admitted that the feature can be activated at their own discretion, and by saying that future activation of the remote access capability would not occur “without express written notification to all students and families,” the district admitted that it had peered into private homes with neither notification nor consent.

In fact, perhaps the biggest fight the school district has put up was this week in the hearing preceding the issuance of the order, when the lead counsel for Lower Merion School District voiced concern over the language of any order issued by the court.

“We don’t want it to be called an ‘injunction,’” said lead counsel Henry Hockheimer Jr. of Philadelphia law firm Ballard Spahr, noting that his clients had similar reservations about words like “enjoined,” preferring the more innocuous “prohibited.” Judge Jan E. DuBois agreed, waving his robed arm high along an imaginary marquee, saying that he understood the district wanting to avoid certain types of headlines.

Is it possible that the school district is not quite fully aware of the trouble it’s in? For the most part, after all, educators sit on the far left of the traditional political spectrum, a place where most of their immediate ideological neighbors share the notion that government knows better than the individual, and that schools and school administrators in their infinite wisdom can parent better than parents. Is it really so outlandish to consider that officials at Lower Merion School District wholeheartedly believed not only that it was their right to police its own population — even at home — in search of possible wrongdoing, but that they were looking out for the best interests of their students by doing so?

Looking around Courtroom 12-B yesterday afternoon, I became acutely aware that of the four laptops in the room, my own was not the only one with an obscured webcam. Walking through a common area at my law school later yesterday evening, I noticed even more.

Whatever the reasoning, whether the lens obstruction is symbolic in nature — mine sports a “forever” first class stamp prominently featuring a photo of the Liberty Bell — or if the concern for privacy is actual, it is clear in the suburbs of Philadelphia that the Nanny State is alive and well, and that even in school districts where the students seem to have everything, true freedom and liberty can still be elusive.

In case your eyes popped out of your head as you were reading the paragraph about the public school official freaking out over a student eating Mike & Ike candy in his bedroom, it’s really true.

I think of the Democrats who attacked Bush over his “irresponsible” deficits.  I remember the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from March 16, 2006:

“The deterioration of the federal government’s finances is the direct result of the misguided priorities of this administration and this rubber stamping republican Congress.  these deficits have resulted in an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree.”

But here Harry Reid and the same Democrats are now engaging in spending which makes Bush’s deficits look like chump change:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

I think of Democrats lambasting the tactic of reconciliation (which the media called “the nuclear option” when Republicans considered using it to underscore just how extreme it was), only to now hypocritically and deceitfully repudiate everything they claimed to stand for.

What was it that Joe Biden said about the procedure he’s all in favor of now?

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.”

What was it Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said?

It’s a moment of truth for the United States Senate.

Today, Senate Democrats represent the last check on President Bush’s power.

Republicans want to eliminate this check and give President Bush power no president has ever had — the ability to hand out lifetime federal judgeships without consensus from the other party. […]

A government in which one party has control over all decisions is bad for America and bad for all our people.

Our country works better when we cooperate and work towards compromises that benefit the greater good and not one group over another.

What we are seeing now is the most vile hypocrisy – perpetuated by Democrats against their very own rhetoric.  Democrats essentially are saying, “Republicans shouldn’t use the nuclear option because they aren’t treasonous slime.  WE ARE TREASONOUS SLIME, so we feel fine using it.”

For the record, the Republicans did not use the “nuclear option” in that instance, nor have they ever used it in anything remotely close to the way that Democrats are talking about using it now.

How do Democrats’ skulls not explode from trying to contain all the contradictions?

Why is it that the mainstream media is never around to confront these dishonest hypocrites when they daily spew their demagoguery?

This not only amply demonstrates what totalitarian big government fascists liberals are, but it also illustrates another important conservative doctrine: that if you give Democrats power over your life by accepting their bribes and their free lunches, they will own you.

You take their programs – or their computers – you unknowingly welcome their spying eyes and their chains.  Because everything they give you, they can take away.

Statements from our founding fathers such as this one from Samuel Adams –

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

– are being illustrated in their supreme wisdom more and more every day.

Even Former KGB Russian PM Less Marxist than Barry Hussein

When did you think you’d see the day that the leadership of the United States would embrace Marxist policies, while the leadership of Russia warned us against it?

But that’s exactly what we’ve got going on in today’s mad, mad world:

The Moscow Times » Issue 4167 » Business

Putin Slams Obama Tax Proposal
16 June 2009

The Moscow TimesPrime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign operations, saying it would amount to double taxation that will hurt the global economy.

“This is a serious decision for the world economy,” Putin said at a meeting of the Presidium, the government said on its web site. “If taxes are imposed on all companies working abroad, then it will mean the total destruction of the system for avoiding double taxation.”

Putin instructed Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to hold discussions on the plan with Obama’s administration.

Kudrin met with finance ministers from the Group of Eight over the weekend and signed an agreement with Italy outlining a system for avoiding double taxation.

Obama has proposed canceling a provision of the tax code that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to defer tax payments on money that is reinvested in local operations.

“It’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York,” he said in May, referring to the current state of the U.S. tax code, media reported.

Obama is scheduled to make his first official visit to Moscow on July 6-8.

I truly never believed the day would come when I would actually find myself envious of Russia’s leadership over ours.

Clearly, if anyone would recognize the essence of socialism and Marxism, it would be men like Vlaidimir Putin, and Russian newspapers such as the Moscow Times and Pravda.  And to paraphrase the often mocked Bush take on Putin, Russia has now looked into the eyes of Barack Obama and found him to be a socialist and a Marxist.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

By: Stanislav Mishin     Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Socialism doesn’t work next time around.  It is based on economic, theological, and philosophical presuppositions that are simply false.  It has always failed, and it always will fail.  If you doubt this, just as the Russians.

Previously, Validimir Putin has already warned the U.S. about its headlong rush to embrace socialism.

Putin has said:

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

The Chinese government previously contacted our tax-cheating Treasury Secretary, ‘Turbo Tax’ Timothy Geithner, and told him:

“We want some kind of a guarantee that your money is going to be worth something if you keep spending so much over there and devalue not only your currency but the currencies throughout the world… We hate you guys.  Once you start issuing $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or more dollars, we know the dollar is going to depreciate.”

So, let’s see.  Our communist and former communist governments are warning us what will happen “if you keep spending so much over there”; we’re being told NOT to make “the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive”; we’re being told Obama’s stupid “plan to raise taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign operations would amount to double taxation.”  And the Russian newspapers are saying “the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed.”  The same paper says of the Marxism that we are descending into, “The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was.”  And it warns the American populace to prepare “for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.”  And they tell us:

“The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”

I said as much in my previous article, “Socialilsm doesn’t work any better next time around.”

Update June 18: there are now two Inspectors General who have been fired under suspicious circumstances by this administration.

Microsoft CEO Says Obama Tax Plan Will Result In Companies Leaving USA

The imperial presidency has issued a new edict to force jobs out of the United States.

What happens if you make the cost of doing business too expensive in a given area?  Either businesses go out of business or they leave for greener pastures.

And, under Obama, the “greener pastures” are anywhere but America.

Tax plan would send jobs offshore, Ballmer says

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said the software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said the software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said Wednesday. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

Obama on May 4 proposed outlawing or restricting about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade. Such business groups as the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have denounced the proposed overhaul.

U.S. tax rules let companies defer paying corporate rates as high as 35 percent on most types of foreign profits as long as that money remains invested overseas. Obama says he wants to end such incentives to keep foreign profits tax-deferred so that companies would invest them in the U.S.

It’s kind of like New York taxing cigarettes to $11 per pack.  Liberals THINK they will A) pay for their liberal social programs and B) get people to stop smoking.  But they are not living in the real world because what will actually happen is C) people will begin to buy black market cigarettes.

The infamous luxury tax is a great example:

Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10% luxury tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his “no new taxes” pledge.

But it wasn’t long before even these die-hard class warriors noticed they’d badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected — for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy’s home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77% drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.

But liberals have to learn the same basic lesson over and over again (which is another way of saying liberals never learn).

Only a fool thinks you get more of something by taxing it.  Only a fool thinks that people won’t change their behavior in order to avoid paying higher taxes.

Which is another way of saying liberals are fools.

Income tax revenues should be a frightening predictor of the future.  Compared to the 2007/2008 average, individual tax revenues were down 40%, and corporate tax revenues were down a stunning 67%! And while these numbers obviously reflect the poor economy, they are also a harbinger of tax sheltering to come as people try every trick to avoid paying taxes that everyone knows will go up and up (just like the taxes on cigarettes).   Obama and the Democrats are going to have to raise taxes across the board in an increasingly desperate attempt to monetize the massive budget gap caused by their massive spending.

And one of those “tricks” will be to simply leave the country to get away from Obama and his frankly stupid policies.

What’s the Difference Between Democrats And Republicans?

What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A lot of people are frankly pretty apolitical and frankly don’t know a lot about the two parties. I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would like to try to provide at least the accurate essence of what Democrats believe in before offering the Republican counter.

I understand that many people are not particularly involved in politics until major elections. It is not a matter of ignorance, but rather a matter of being occupied with raising children and running households. When an election rolls around, many people want to make the right decisions for themselves and for their country, but become bogged down in a morass of partisan claims and counter-claims.

The truth is, Democrats and Republicans differ on nearly everything today. But let me focus on three categories – social policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy – and try to describe a few key differences.