Democrat Debate Showed All You Need To Be A Democrat Is A Radical Contempt For Reality

It was amazing to see this debate.  CNN deliberately – out of their blatant bias – engineered their shot at the Republican debate to force Republicans to attack each other.  Every single question they asked in the Republican debate was, “Why don’t you think your opponent should be the next president?”

Many of the questions were framed in a way designed to encourage candidates to criticize other candidates’ positions on issues (or nonissues) rather than addressing issues themselves. (Others disagree with you. What do you think?! was the general thrust of the questioning.) “Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the $100 million you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?” Tapper asked Jeb Bush early on in the debate. There is no possible world in which that question could ever elicit an interesting or valuable answer.

But did CNN follow their own, let’s make the candidates eat each other and enjoy the Republican-on-Republican violence we ginned up?  Nope.

[…] Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

“Look, these are all serious people,” explained Cooper. “This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that.”

This is a rabidly biased “journalist” from a rabidly biased “news network.”  He’s telling us that Republicans have zero-point-zero interests in talking about issues, that really all they wanted to do was personally attack each other, and for some reason he had no problem being “uncomfortable” when he did to Republicans what he said he absolutely was NOT going to do to the Democrats.  Because, after all, according to Anderson Cooper, Democrat candidates “are all serious people.”  Whereas the governors and senators and incredibly successful field of Republicans are all clowns by simple definition of liberal demagogic ideology.

So what I’m telling you is that from the very outset, this debate was a JOKE.

And the result was it was boring and changed NOTHING.  Hillary Clinton got sheltered when she should have been shellacked.  And that was the plan.  I suppose that’s what “no fireworks” meant; the purpose of this debate from the ideological plotters and schemers was to reinforce whatever preconceived script they wanted to.

So there weren’t any seriously tough questions asked of the Democrats that they didn’t want to answer the way Republicans are asked tough questions that they don’t want to answer.  There also aren’t anywhere near as many debates for fascist Democrats who at this time in their wretched, degenerate existence despise free speech as there are for Republicans.

The debates were rigged from the outset to benefit the presumed queen empress of the space-time universe.

“Four debates. Four debates. Four debates, and only four debates. We are told—not asked—before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said on Friday. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.” […]

O’Malley says the DNC is only doing this to protect Clinton, and O’Malley isn’t alone in this theory. Sen. Bernie Sanders is unhappy as well.

“I believe at a time when so many people have given up on the political process, when 80 percent of people did not vote in the last election, 63 percent of the people did not vote, I believe that debates are a good thing,” Sanders said.

Democrats are by nature fascists and didn’t want to allow too many debates which would have allowed a challenger to rise and begin to threaten the selection by the Stalinist DNC – which is led by a fascist woman who implicitly acknowledged that there is ZERO difference between a “Democrat” and a “socialist” today.

“What is the difference,” between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism Meet The Press host Chuck Todd asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democrats. “Can you explain the difference?”

Again, she will not answer, following her non-answer to the same question on Thursday’s episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Nobody had to answer much during the staged Democrat debate on CNN.  That’s for sure.

As an example, I don’t recall very many questions about Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy article that is just beyond creepy.  The left and their media lackeys couldn’t care less; that kind of awfulness very clearly only matters if the candidate is a Republican.  I mean, I’m sorry; Joy Behar of the ABC program The View gushed that Bernie Sanders is sexy; but aside from the fact that socialists are pathologically creepily in love with their masters (whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Bill Clinton or Obama or Sanders), it’s rather obvious that to put it in Sanders’ words, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’’

The CNN debate had the premise, “Let’s not all reveal what pieces of garbage all we liberals are.”

I remember the last decent Democrat named John F. Kennedy.  I remember his saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  Today to be a true Democrat means screaming, “NO!  SCREW this country.  TAKE from it!  FORCE it to give to you!  Do NOTHING for it but take and take and TAKE from it until it collapses so we can impose the communism that the American founding fathers would have rather died more deaths than Obama’s debt to stop.  Because to be a damned Democrat is to hate the United States of America so much it is beyond unreal.  Prominent Democrat Party members say the goal is socialism.  Liberal academia say the goal is communism.  The liberal ACLU says the goal is communism.  The powerful liberal labor union SEIU says the goal is communism.  The entire Obama presidency has been one to use manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis to impose a Stalinist dictatorship of government-by-executive order.

There were no questions about the sixty million abortions every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for.  No questions about the fact that to be a Democrat today means to be a sodomy-worshiping pervert who sticks his or her middle finger up at the God of the Bible and shrieks, “F*ck YOU!  Bring your wrath that you tell us about in Romans chapter one ON, God!  Give us raging floods and storms in one place and burning drought in another according to Amos 4:7.  We’ll just blame Your wrath on Republicans!”

I wish there were some religious questions, such as, “How do you respond to Jesus’ narrow, exclusivist statement of John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one can come to the Father except through Me.”  I’d like to hear the candidates deal with the question, “Why has the Democrat Party so rabidly turned against Jesus Christ and the moral teachings of the Bible?”  But no.

There was one question that exposed the complete cowardice of the Democrat Party today.  Anderson Cooper asked each candidate to respond to the question, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?”  And there was only ONE candidate on the stage – and no Democrat will vote for him because to be a Democrat is to be a toxically depraved human being – who answered that all lives matter.  That’s because to be a Democrat is to be an abject SLAVE to your party’s special interest, to your party’s rabid leftist base.

And so a good follow-up question would have been, “Why don’t you believe that white lives matter in America today?  Just why is it that you were such a damn, miserable COWARD to answer that last question the way you did, you despicable political weasels?”  But no.

No questions about how encouraging entire generations of Democrats to be welfare parasites for the incredibly cynical purpose of trying to force them to vote Democrat for life is “doing what you can for your country” rather than “not asking what your country can do for you.”

But that would be about actual reality.  And to be a Democrat is to be a snarling hater of reality.

So no real questions about how all the Democrats on the platform seem to be channeling the uber-leftist message that more Obamaesque policies will somehow lead to “social justice” and end income inequality when Obama’s damn policies have done more to make actual income inequality worse than any and all presidents before him.

There were no questions about why all the Democrat candidates vying for Obama’s ninth through twelfth years in office are making the horror of income inequality a primary issue in the seventh damn year of Obama.  What exactly did Democrats do to solve income inequality when Barack Obama was Democrat president, Harry Reid was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Democrat Speaker of the House?  They made it worse than George W. Bush EVER made it.  Even the damn Obama White House’s own Economic Advisors’ Report acknowledges that Obama has exploded income inequality.  We just came out with a jobs report that features the lowest labor participation rate in the work force in 38 years.  I mean, “Yes, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1 percent, but only because the workforce shrank by 300,000 or so.”  Which is a direct quote from PBS about the last jobs report.  But that’s reality.

And Democrats hate reality more than they love life.

So Democrats can explode a problem into a crisis and then exploit the crisis they create to slander and lie and demonize everybody but themselves.  Nobody has a job because they have regulated jobs out of existence.  But now they can exploit the fact that they destroyed all the jobs to blame those greedy, rich people should go bankrupt being forced to pay wages and benefits they can’t possibly afford to pay while they’re being forced to spend exorbitantly to conform to regulations they can’t possibly conform to.

And stupid people who despise reality believe their lies.

The labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – has SHOCKINGLY PLUNGED under the wicked, depraved, foolish, idiotic policies of Democrat fascist socialist statism.  Even the New York Times is forced to call Obama’s last jobs report “grim.”  Because he has wildly FAILED.

No significant questions about Hillary Clinton’s private server or the pathologically fascist, paranoid and secretive shrew she had to have been and continues to remain in order to install one in the first place.  I would have loved to see Anderson Cooper treat the Democrat candidates like Republicans with questions such as, “Would you have installed a private email server and obliterated all legitimate transparency and accountability by purging your communications AFTER they had been lawfully subpoenaed?  Would YOU have risked national security by throwing out over 400 top-secret emails without adequate protections the way Hillary Clinton did?  Would you endorse right now every single Republican politician and appointee being able to install private servers in their homes to avoid accountability the way Hillary Clinton was able to do?  Do you believe there ought to be such a thing as transparency and accountability as Hillary Clinton very clearly does not?  Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there ought to be one standard for her and a vastly different one for everyone else?  Or do you agree with Hillary Clinton as when Americans are being murdered under her watch, “What difference does it make?”

But no.  That would be dealing with reality.  And you’re not allowed to be a Democrat unless you have fang-dripping hatred for reality.

Bernie Sanders suggests that he was not being political when he said that his rival’s emails ought to be off-limits in the debate.  That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders being decent or courageous; it’s because he recognizes that Democrats frankly are miserable, wicked, depraved moral scum who don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who broke the law and horrifyingly violated our national security and belongs in prison.  He said what he said because he knew that the same damn perverted cowards who would have booed him if he’d had the courage and the decency to say that all lives matter would also have booed him if he pointed out Hillary Clinton’s crimes.

Because to a Democrat, abject, despicable moral COWARDICE masquerades for courage.  Which is why Democrats stupidly believe that Barack Obama is actually brave to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who freed Hitler to unleash hell by his abject failure to stand up and have any kind of a backbone when the world desperately needed one in the days leading up to World War II.

No questions about our national debt and how it has exploded under Barack Obama and what Democrat presidents would do to reduce it rather than explode it even more.  No question of how Barack Obama wasn’t the worst hypocrite in the history of the entire universe when he demonized George Bush with these words on July 3, 2008 because George Bush had disgustingly added $4 trillion to the national debt:

Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

No questions about the fact that Barack Obama has now more than doubled Bush’s debt after hypocritically demonizing him for it and no questions about the fact that by the time Obama leaves office, he will personally have added more to the debt than every single U.S. president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.

Because to be a Democrat is to be so viciously hateful toward reality it is beyond unreal.

But wouldn’t that have been a good question: “How in the hell are you going to do all this leftist socialist crap and not bankrupt America?  Or are you going to be the same sort of rabid, demon-possessed LIAR the last Democrat president was and vomit out an ocean of lies?

No significant questions about the rise and spread of the threat of Islamic State or the caliphate Barack Obama’s foolish and depraved policies allowed them to carve out of a country where Obama once took credit for securing and a country where Obama once issued an infamous “red line” that he subsequently allowed his enemies to walk all over.

Because if you’re a Democrat you truly don’t give one flying DAMN about the actual state of the world.  You are a demon-possessed fool who lives in a web of lies spun by worse fools who are even more demon-possessed.

Meanwhile, the same ISIS that has owned Syria is now advancing on Baghdad.  And somehow Obama’s idiotic Democrat Party rhetoric is not stopping the screaming jihadists armed with heavy weapons.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s just pretend that if we’re really, really nice to them and disarm our military capacity and bare our throats to their knives, they’ll see we’re no threat to them and leave us alone.  Because I’m a Democrat and I’ve never actually so much as touched actual reality in my entire useless life.

Listening to the Democrats on the stage, you got a vivid picture of why everything has melted down in the world: George W. Bush.  Seven years after he left office, he is STILL the ONLY actual leader who is to be held responsible for ANYTHING in America.  On their presentation, the world was idyllic and wonderful before Bush came along.  We were at peace and harmony with all living things.  And then the devil Bush came along and plunged America into war.  And even is spite of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the true Messiah, come to save us from not having a nanny-state government that will wipe our filthy bottoms for us, he has not been able to overcome the wicked work of the devil Bush.

Gosh, you’d have to seriously hate reality to not remember that Democrats very clearly agreed with George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein DID in FACT have weapons of mass destruction that needed to be dealt with. Democrats like then-president Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued crystal-clear statements that Saddam Hussein had WMD going back a full three years before George W. Bush assumed office:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Let’s just use our power of liberalism to whitewash reality and smear it with whatever fecal matter that has been crammed into our heads that Hillary Clinton was just ONE of the Democrats who acknowledged Bush’s legitimacy in going to war after the United States was massively attacked on 9/11/2001.  Let’s just forget that Hillary Clinton AFTER Bush had invaded Iraq in response to the 9/11 attack said:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. — Sen. Hillary Clinton

Just consider how completely full of lies the Democrat narrative as presented on that staged stage last night truly revealed themselves to be.  On their warped, wicked, presentation of “reality,” all the 9/11 terrorists DIDN’T come into America when Bill Clinton was president.  Even though in actual reality ALL the 9/11 terrorists came into America while the president of the United States’ initials were W.J.C.  rather than G.W.B.

There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole and other debacles that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he could have easily killed Osama bin Laden.  But bin Laden was just one more Clinton mess to leave for the hated Republican administration.  So to hell with it.

Bill Clinton left was the president who left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse and a recession that was very nearly every bit as bad as the one in 2008 that Democrats used to pervert their way to power.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 economic crash.  But hey, that crash that Bill Clinton’s policies directly fed gave Democrats an excuse to say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  So it was all good to the DNC.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

So that was the world before George W. Bush attacked Iraq.  And Democrats are truly demon-possessed to demonize him the way they do.

But let’s now cut to after the war.  Let’s point out for the damn factual record the REALITY that George W. Bush left office as a VICTOR in that war in Iraq.

Joe Biden admitted it:

“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.” — Vice President Joe Biden

Barack Obama admitted it and even celebrated it:

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009

Even al Qaeda in Iraq itself acknowledged that George W. Bush had won the war in Iraq:

By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters. — General Jack Keane

There is ZERO question that the war in Iraq – a war Democrats supported before treasonously turning against it because the Democrat Party is the PARTY of treason- was WON by the time Obama metastasized his way into the presidency.

Let’s go back to 2009 and see what Barack Obama did treasonously undermined EVERYTHING our generals and military commanders deeply believed we needed to do:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Barack Obama didn’t have to leave Iraq.  HE WANTED TO IN SPITE OF ANY AND ALL WISDOM WHATSOEVER.

And a bloodbath has happened as a direct result of a pathologically wicked Democrat president of a pathologically wicked Democrat Party.

Let’s consider what President George W. Bush PREDICTED if a wicked fool like Barack Obama pursued his wicked foolishness:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President George W. Bush

Bush was right.  Reality is a witness.  And Democrats need to be hunted down with dogs and burned alive if we are to have any chance of survival as a nation.

You listen to the morally diseased Democrat cockroaches who were spreading their filth on that stage last night and it was George W. Bush who somehow created the absolute meltdown in Syria.

First of all, it wasn’t George W. Bush who created the instability in Syria.  It was Barack Obama’s evil Federal Reserve policies that essentially created food riots.  Because the United States is – but won’t be for much longer, thanks to Obama’s fiscal insanity – the world’s Reserve Currency, all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars.  And Obama’s fiscal policies ended up poisoning the currencies in poorer Middle Eastern countries as food prices skyrocketed relative to purchasing power.  Which the leftist mainstream media due to their own failure to comprehend reality had the moral idiocy to call “the Arab Spring” like it was somehow a good thing.  They were riots because people were starving because Barack Obama has failed the entire planet so abysmally.

Then there was Obama’s “red line” fiasco after the food riots dissolved Syria into brutal civil war that has now claimed about a quarter of a million lives while Obama dithered.  It was such a fiasco that Obama being the pathological liar and coward that he is claimed he didn’t say it.  Without any question to any rational mind capable of waking up and smelling the real world emboldened our worst enemies.

Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen more than a year and a half ago prophetically wrote an article with this title:

Obama’s weakness emboldens Putin

That article – written not yesterday but more than a year and a half ago – ends with these words:

Today, America is projecting weakness. Obama’s failure to enforce his red line in Syria projected weakness. His constant talk of withdrawal and ending wars so we can focus on “nation-building here at home” projects weakness. His decision to gut the U.S. defense budget and reduce the Army to pre-World War II levels projects weakness.

When your adversaries believe you are weak, they are emboldened to act — and prone to miscalculate. Putin believes there will be no real costs for his intervention in Ukraine because there were no costs in Syria. He knows the Obama Doctrine is to do just enough “not to get mocked.” If he is proved right, it will have consequences far beyond the Crimean Peninsula. A failure to impose costs on Russia will further embolden adversaries from Beijng to Pyongyang to Tehran — all of whom are measuring Obama’s resolve in Ukraine, just as Putin measured Obama’s resolve in Syria and found it lacking.

You tell me how Thiessen wasn’t right now that Putin just swarmed into Syria, ordered the United States it had better stay the hell clear from them unless Obama wanted to get punched right in the mouth, and proceeded to start killing all of the few remaining U.S. allies in the region that we had left.  As Russia just snarled, “The Middle East is OURS now, America.  Get out, you pathetic little weasel coward Obama turds!”  And that is exactly what we’ve done.  Just as we’ve gotten out of the largest trading route in the world as China built an island and then militarized that island in the South China Sea while Obama did NOTHING because he has no credible threat whatsoever.

And we did it because Russia with Putin has demonstrated that he has the spine to fight and Barack Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is a pathetic coward who will NOT risk losing the support of his rabid leftist base that yearns for America to suffer terrible defeat so they can exploit the next crisis.  Nobody believes that weak little coward pussy will do anything no matter how much our worse enemies humiliate us or walk all over us.

And Democrats have the Lucifer in them to say that was Bush’s fault.

Everything about this debate was nothing but a sick joke.

But there is no possibility of any kind of actual “debate” when you have liars debating liars about whose lies sell to the membership of the most stupid and most depraved and most demonic party in the history of the world.

 

 

 

Obama’s Border Crisis Makes Bush’s Hurricane Katrina Actually Look Like A Heckuva Job, Brownie, Indeed. And It Makes Democrats Look Positively EVIL.

Do you remember that line from George Bush: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”???  Thanks to the mainstream media machine, that quote became immortalized as an out of touch president who looked out of an airplane to see the world from far below.

Too bad that media died and they decided to utterly abandon all journalistic principles to worship their messiah instead of reporting the damn news.

Otherwise they would see a president who can’t even be bothered to fly over the damn disaster zone that is our border with Mexico as tens of thousands and growing into hundreds of thousands of children come pouring across the border driven by the FACT that Barack Obama has abrogated all border enforcement and basically won’t deport ANYBODY.

I tell you the truth: one day, soon, at the very rock bottom of hell will be the reporters who abandoned their constitutional responsibility and instead published their ideology rather than the truth.  And standing on their shoulders will be the liberal progressive Democrats who stood on the shoulders of these dishonest propagandist shills throughout their political careers.

WHERE is the media publishing the damn photo of Obama looking out of his plane while on his way to a damn FUNDRAISER when at least Bush had the courtesy to fly over the disaster zone???

And of course they’re nowhere, just as the president who voted “present” more times than all the presidents in the entire history of our republic COMBINED ever voted “present” is nowhere to be found, that’s where.

Barack Obama is a truly evil man, a profoundly wicked man, a political ideologue, BY HIS OWN DEMONIC AND DEMAGOGIC STANDARD.

Listen to Barack Obama demonize George Bush for his “Katrina flyover”:

OBAMA:  “When the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there.  When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky.  When the winds blew and the floodwaters came, we learned that for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America.  We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should.  We can talk about levees that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that’s seen as not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane.”

Now it is official: George W. Bush – even at his very worst moment – was still about a trillion times more of a freaking man than Barack Obama ever has been or ever WILL be.  Because, to put it in Obama’s own slander, Obama is such a pathologically worthless sack of stink that he won’t even bother to “see the people from the window of an airplane.”

What a loathsome, uncaring, cynical, depraved piece of work our Coyote-in-Chief is to dare to say that about Bush and then not even be able to come CLOSE to manning up himself to GO TO THE DAMN BORDER AND PERSONALLY SEE THE DISASTER HE CAUSED.

What is Obama saying now?  This:

OBAMA:  “There’s nothing that has taken place down there that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on.  This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  And those who say I should visit the border, when you ask ’em what should we be doing, they’re giving us suggestions that are embodied in legislation that I’ve already sent to Congress.”

Let me ask you a question, liberal hypocrite: what if George Bush had pointed out that maybe he wasn’t all that interested in photo-ops, either.  For the record, he would be a few trillion times more honest than Obama – the first “selfie president” – is about not loving “photo-ops” whenever they suit his demonic agenda.

What would you craven, demon-worshiping hypocrites have said if George W. Bush had arrogantly said, “There’s nothing that has taken place down there [in that hurricane disaster zone] that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on”????  Tell me that you wouldn’t have held a national – hell, GLOBAL freak-out that would have lasted the rest of your worthless lives.

Obama now says, “This isn’t theater.  This is a problem.”

Very well, you future residents of hell, tell me NOW that Hurricane Katrina – unlike the Obama border fiasco – was just “theater” to you.  Tell me it actually WASN’T a “problem” such that the George W. Bush whom Barack Obama demonized should have and could have just done one fundraiser after another instead.

And tell me how it would have played with you vermin liberals had George Bush said, “This isn’t a theater.  This is a problem.  I’m not interested in photo-ops.  I’m interested in solving a problem.  So instead of going to the hurricane disaster zone like an actual LEADER, I’m instead going to demonize my political opponents and do NOTHING… well, except a damn freaking buttload of FUNDRAISERS”????

Do you Democrats have any concept whatsoever how EVIL you are???  And I don’t mean by MY standards; I mean by YOUR OWN as expressed by your pharaoh god-king, Emperor Obama???

Liberals make me want to puke until there’s nothing left and I dematerialize with their endless abject HYPOCRISY.

If you want to blame Bush as a failed president, fine.  But if you can’t recognize how failed Obama is BY THE VERY SAME STANDARDS YOU CONDEMNED BUSH, there is something so broken and so twisted and so vile it is simply beyond unreal.

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite slime who says Bush is to blame for 9/11.  It doesn’t matter that ALL the damn terrorists entered the United States and largely completed their training while Bill Clinton was in office AFTER YEARS OF WEAK INACTION, just as it doesn’t matter to them that Bill Clinton had gutted both our intelligence and our military such that we were both weak and blind or that it was because of Bill Clinton’s pathetic weakness that an emboldened terrorist named Osama bin Laden started calling Americans “paper tigers.”

To be a Democrat today is to be a hypocrite without any virtue or honor who says Bush is to blame for the 2008 economic crash.  It doesn’t matter at ALL to you that Bill Clinton was JUST as to blame for the Dotcom Bubble collapse that led to a giant recession that was very close to being every bit as bad as what happened in 2008.  As George W. Bush assumed office, the nation was officially in RECESSION.

I know you don’t believe me, liberal.  After all, Clinton paved the streets with gold in your mythologies.  But Bloomberg reported this:

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy slipped into recession during Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency rather than under President George W. Bush, the group that officially sets the timing of the country’s business cycles may decide.

The seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research may change its determination that the recession started in March 2001 to reflect recent revisions to government growth statistics, committee members, including Victor Zarnowitz, said.

“We are discussing it now, and in my opinion it should be changed,” Zarnowitz, a senior fellow at the Conference Board in New York, said in an interview. “In my opinion, the recession started in December 2000.”

Such a change might help Republicans deflect a principal criticism of Democrats seeking to unseat Bush in this year’s presidential election. Bush took office in January 2001.

And CNN reported the FACTS albeit sadly AFTER the fact when the facts would have actually made more of a difference:

John Kerry declared, “[George Bush] inherited the strongest economy in the world – and brought it to its knees.” There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession. Did the recession begin in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush’s inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate. According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that. For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 – at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 – more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact “on the front end of a recession,” as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000. Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that “the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.”

So given the FACT that Bush and Clinton basically ended up with the same economic performance – with both presidents averaging 5.2% unemployment during their presidencies – the ONLY difference between Bush and Clinton was that Clinton’s recession blew up in Bush’s face as Clinton left office and Bush’s recession also blew up in Bush’s face before Bush left office.

The DotCom bubble burst was a HUGE recession, comparable to our so-called “Great Recession.”  It vaporized 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, which is the measure of tech stocks.  And it caused a massive $7.1 TRILLION loss for the U.S. economy.  And frankly the ONLY reason more people don’t remember that massive economic hit was because Bill Clinton let those pesky terrorists come into America to attack us.

The amazing thing is that had Clinton not left us vulnerable to the 9/11 attack, he would have received more of the blame due to him over the massive recession that began under his watch.  Instead, given the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the openly-liberal mainstream media, he was largely let off the hook for BOTH disasters.

But, yeah, to be a Democrat is to be the kind of personally dishonest hypocrite who blames Bush for Clinton’s economy, then blames Bush for Bush’s economy and then blames Bush for Obama’s economy EVEN SIX YEARS AFTER OBAMA TOOK DAMN OFFICE.

Getting back to this border meltdown, we’ve got to acknowledge something called a FACT: for all of Bush’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush did not cause the giant waves to wash over Louisiana.  You know, unlike Barack Obama, who sure as poop stinks DID cause the flood of immigrant children to wash over America.

Do you remember Lucifer Obama and his lieutenant Beelzebub Holder SUING Jan Brewer and declaring that ONLY the federal government had any right to enforce our border???  Do you remember how they falsely declared how secure the border was???

Do you remember Obama just flat-out demonically lying when he claimed over and over and over again that he was doing more deporting than any president when in FACT he was doing the LEAST???

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. […]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

Do you remember this story:

DHS document: 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions released in 2013
By Alexander Bolton – 03/31/14 05:45 AM EDT

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last year released 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, undercutting Democratic claims that President Obama has strictly enforced immigration laws.

An internal Department of Homeland Security document compiling statistics on arrests and deportations in 2013 showed that ICE agents encountered 193,357 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions but issued charging documents for only 125,478. More than 67,800 were released.

The data came from an end-of-year “Weekly Departures and Detention Report.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, a research group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws, estimates ICE agents released more than a third of illegal immigrants with criminal records they detained.

“ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion policies,” Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in a memo summarizing the DHS document.

ICE classifies illegal immigrants as criminal if they have been convicted of a crime, not including traffic offense, Vaughn noted.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, blasted the administration’s record.

“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed. Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis,” he said in a statement Sunday.

“Secretary Johnson must reject the president’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law — not break it,” he added in reference to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

A spokeswoman for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the immigration debate have fired salvos back and forth over Obama’s track record enforcing the law.

Republicans say they cannot trust Obama to enforce the law, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cited that as an obstacle to passing immigration reform through the House.

Pro-immigrant groups argue Obama has enforced the law too zealously.

Janet Murguía, the president of the National Council of La Raza, called Obama the “deporter in chief” earlier this month.

Senate Democrats like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have called on Obama to halt the deportations of illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that ICE officials moved to deport 28 percent fewer illegal immigrants from the interior of the country in 2013 than in 2012.

The group obtained the law enforcement records through a lawsuit.

They obtained the records through a lawsuit because Obama’s is the LEAST most transparent and the MOST dishonest administration in the entire history of the republic.  Because these shenanigans keep going on over and over and over again, whether it’s the fiasco of Benghazi and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the IRS and Obama’s lies and cover ups or the fiasco at the VA and Obama’s lies and cover ups.

Do you remember this story from well over a YEAR ago?

President Barack Obama and his administration appear to care about satisfying “special interest groups” within the Democratic base more than protecting the lives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, the ICE union boss told lawmakers Tuesday.

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on,” Chris Crane, president the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, told the House Judiciary Committee.

He went on: “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

Watch a portion of Crane’s testimony below:

Crane said ICE agents have been “essentially prohibited” from enforcing U.S. immigration law. He said agents are unable to arrest illegal aliens who are in the country illegally or immigrants who have overstayed their visas. “It’s basically not illegal anymore, generally speaking, not unless the alien has been convicted of a criminal offense.”

He said ICE agents are being forced to accept any illegal alien’s claim as to whether he or she graduated or is attending high school or college, thus qualifying them for Obama’s “deferred action for childhood arrivals” (DACA) privileges. Agents are “powerless” in requiring illegal aliens to prove they actually qualify.

“Death or serious injury to ICE officers and agents appears more acceptable to ICE, DHS, and Administration leadership, than the public complaints that would be lodged by special interest groups representing illegal aliens,” Crane said, according to a report by the Washington Examiner.

Several ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over policies that prevent immigration officials from enforcing federal immigration law.

Let’s go over the ICE union head’s testimony again:

“Internally, the agency, in my opinion is falling apart. Morale is at an all-time low, according to recent federal surveys. The agency refuses to train our officers on these new policies, resulting in mass confusion and frustration… nobody really knows what’s going on.” …    “As our officers are investigated by ICE for enforcing U.S. immigration law as they see other officers threatened with suspensions for lawful arrests, increasingly officers feel they have become the enemy of this administration.”

That was in February of 2013, nearly a year and a damn half ago.

Democrat, if you want to claim that Obama isn’t one-trillion percent responsible for this total anarchy and collapse on our border, you have that right as a future eternal resident of the fire of hell.  But I’m going to point out the fact that you are psychologically sick and you are morally evil.

Democrats are telling us that the border meltdown is the result of a 2008 law.  Fine.  And I’ll believe it when I see that there were hundreds of thousands of children streaming across our border beginning in 2008.  Only that isn’t TRUE.  It didn’t begin until Obama declared a de facto AMNESTY and basically assured his liberal voting bloc of Hispanics that he would never bother to enforce the law beyond his bogus dishonest application of pseudo statistics.

Even NOW Democrats are continuing to prove that they are so radically disassociated with reality that they belong in rubber rooms.  Because they’re saying that the reports that the Central American families are hearing – that if their children come to the US they will be able to stay here – aren’t true.  But they ARE true.  As Obama is proving by serving as their Coyote-in-Chief as he buses and flies these children all over America.  And then tells them to report to an INS facility when it is simply a FACT that 90% of them will NEVER report.

I now state it as a documented FACT that Brownie DID do a heck of a job during Hurricane Katrina.  Because we now see what a truly CRAPPY job really looks like.

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But here’s the truth:

FDR prolonged — not ended — great depression

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry – who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all –

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

Just Asking: How Much Credit For Getting Osama Bin Laden Does Obama Truly Deserve?

When I first heard about the assault on the compound in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, I was happy and proud as an American.  And willing to give Obama credit where credit was due.

It seemed like a gutsy move – which the mainstream media narrative quickly seized upon: the political consequences for Obama would have been quite negative if the mission had failed.  It would have reminded everyone yet again that Obama is a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.  And the whole “Desert One” fiasco would have surely been remembered.

But take just a second and look at it from the opposite perspective; you know, the one that the mainstream media has never once considered for even a nanosecond.  What would have happened had Barack Obama decided NOT to try to take out bin Laden?  What would have happened – more to the point – when the American people were informed that Barack Obama had known for certain where Osama bin Laden was, and refused to try to get him?

Wouldn’t that have had even MORE DISASTEROUS consequences???

And, the thing is, it is a near certainty that that information would have gotten out.  There would have been sufficient disgust in both the CIA and in the Pentagon that somebody would have made sure that the news got out that Barack Obama – who had PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden – had cowardly refused to keep yet another promise.

Imagine for just a second the abundant campaign ads: slow-moving video of Osama bin Laden, followed by footage of the twin towars collapsing, followed by Barack Obama giving his word to get bin Laden, followed by the evidence that Obama knew for at least half a year where bin Laden was hiding, and refused to even try to get him.

It would have been just as “bold” for Obama to decide that an operation to get bin Laden was too risky, and jeopardized critical U.S.-Pakistani relations to too high a degree.

Barack Obama was forced into a position where he had to rely on the U.S. military to save his political hide.  And the U.S. military came through for him.

And how does Obama repay that military?  By literally gutting their budget, that’s how:

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year’s budget for discretionary programs.

Does Obama deserve credit for that?  Really?  Is he out right now campaigning as the guy who just gutted the military he commands, or is he out campaigning as the commander-in-chief of a glorious military?

People should hear that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is taking an axe and gutting the Navy SEALs, and the Nightstalkers who brought them in and out of that compound, and the Screaming Eagles he visited yesterday, and the entire rest of the military.

People should know that Barack Obama demonized the primary means of interrogation that got us Osama bin Laden.  And there is no question that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” methods led us to the breakthroughs we needed to get bin Laden:

Ex-CIA Counterterror Chief: ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Led U.S. to bin Laden
By Massimo Calabresi Wednesday, May 4, 2011

A former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who was investigated last year by the Justice Department for the destruction of videos showing senior al-Qaeda officials being interrogated, says the harsh questioning of terrorism suspects produced the information that eventually led to Osama bin Laden’s death.

Jose Rodriguez ran the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 2002 to 2005, the period when top al-Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Faraj al-Libbi were taken into custody and subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) at secret prisons overseas. KSM was subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques. Al-Libbi was not waterboarded, but other EITs were used on him.

“Information provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libbi about bin Laden’s courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s] compound and the operation that led to his death,” Rodriguez tells TIME in his first public interview. Rodriguez was cleared of charges in the video-destruction investigation last year.

Even career Democrat and Obama appointee for Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta has openly acknowledged that waterboarding was an instrumental part of this intelligence effort:

Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied:  ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation.  … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”

When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied:  “That’s correct.”

We have the following from the CIA analysts and the CIA director at the time, describing how essential the enhanced interrogations were to the knowledge that the CIA learned:

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): March 2003, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured and according to U.S. officials, the self-described architect of 9/11 was immediately taken into the CIA enhanced interrogation program and waterboarded. It was three to four months later, according to U.S. officials, that KSM was asked about the courier who was known only by an Al Qaeda alias. He downplayed the courier’s importance. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says the implications of the CIA’s early leads are clear. […]

A former senior intelligence official says the waterboarding of KSM, quote, “took his spirited defiance into a zone of cooperation,” adding that the harsh interrogation tactic critics described as torture was not used to elicit information but rather to alter the detainee’s mindset. Philip Mudd is a former CIA analyst.

PHILIP MUDD, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Having seen this stuff on the inside, that’s not a debate. That is a done deal. The information we got was invaluable. So debate the cultural side and the political side, but please don’t debate the intelligence side.

HERRIDGE: In a radio interview with FOX, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said there is no question the CIA program including waterboarding laid the foundation for bin Laden’s capture.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR ON FOX NEWS RADIO (via telephone): That database was kind of like the home depot of intelligence analysis. You know, it was incredibly detailed stuff.

HERRIDGE: As for its role in identifying this compound in Pakistan —

HAYDEN: It would be very difficult for me to conceive of an operation like the one that took place on Sunday that did not include in its preparation information that came out of the CIA detention program.

HERRIDGE: 2004 and 2005 are described as turning points. Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, a gatekeeper for Osama bin Laden, were both in the CIA secret prisons. U.S. officials say for a second time, KSM downplayed the courier significance and al-Libi denied knowing him. The men’s adamant denials appeared to be an effort to protect the courier and U.S. officials say it, quote, “sent up red flags for the CIA” because other detainees consistently claims the courier maintained bin Laden’s trust.

And if you don’t believe EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE KEY PEOPLE INVOLVED, just accept that Bush and HIS gutsy decision to approve waterboarding led us to the knowledge that Osama bin Laden (UBL) was using couriers, the pseudo-names of those couriers that led to intelligence ultiamtely finding their actual names, and even the very city where Osama bin Laden was hiding:

Which is to say that the entire Obama presidency was spent mining information from waterboarding that Obama personally demonized and from a program that Obama shut down.

And we now know that Osama bin Laden was in this compound that we learned about from waterboarding for at least five years.

Every single major fact that we learned we learned from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques.  And the rest of it was simply a matter of confirming what we knew from waterboarding and from enhanced interrogation techniques.

People should KNOW that Barack Obama demands that the United States of America should be nearly blind.

People should also know that on his second day in office Barack Obama shut down and terminated the CIA intelligence program that actually developed the information that got bin Laden.  They should know that America no longer has that capability, and that thanks to Barack Obama we could never even begin to do that again – likely for years to come, given the difficulty of developing such intensive programs.

And people should know that RIGHT NOW Barack Obama is continuing to try to criminally prosecute the incredible men and women who gave us the intelligence breakthroughs that got Osama bin Laden:

In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.

On his second day in office, President Barack Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives in May 2009, Mr. Obama accused the men and women of the CIA of “torture,” declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Now, it turns out that those CIA interrogators played a critical role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, which the president has rightly called “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al-Qaida.”

Even NOW Obama is refusing to do anything to stop the prosecution of the men and women who gave us bin Laden, even as he flies around taking credit for getting bin Laden.  Should we be giving Obama credit for that???

This nation should be grateful to George W. Bush, and for his courage and foresight to develop the programs and to create the capabilities that ultimately won us this victory against Osama bin Laden.  It was the courage of George Bush that resulted in waterboarding – which Bush and his key advisors KNEW would be used by vile cowards like Barack Obama to demonize them.  But they knew it had to be done, and they did it.

In the same way, Bush created the Guantanamo Bay (“Gitmo”) detention facility.  Bush expanded the rendition program that had been used by Bill Clinton.  Bush created the Patriot Act.  Bush approved of domestic surveillance.  Bush set up the military tribunals that had been used by Democrats like FDR in previous time of war.  Bush established the indefinite detentions of the most hardened terrorists.

Barack Obama personally demonized and vilified all of these things.  But he is using them to this day because they had to be done.

I would argue that the hero of this is George Bush; and that Barack Obama is a self-aggrandizing coward who was forced to use virtually all of the programs that he self-righteously demagogued for political advantage in a way that is frankly treasonous.

Right now we have a treasure trove of intelligence that is likewise nearly entirely the result of the work of George W. Bush.  But be advised: if we don’t shut down al Qaeda now, we probably never will due to the massive failures of the man who sits in the Oval Office as we speak.

“In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we’ll get him running. We’ll smoke him out of his cave and we’ll get him eventually.” — George W. Bush, October 11, 2001

It was always just a matter of time.  And the time came during the misrule of a hypocritical fool.

How Obama Managed To Screw Up Even The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden

It’s really quite amazing: Barack Obama is a near-total failure even when he finally manages to get something right.

Obama’s disasterous bungling of the aftermath of the killing of bin Laden makes me think about that proverbial idiot who managed to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

From the UK Telegraph:

10 ways Barack Obama botched the aftermath of the masterful operation to kill Osama bin Laden
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: May 5th, 2011

The past few days have seemed like an extended amateur hour in the White House as unforced error after unforced error has been made in the handling of the US Government’s message about the killing of bin Laden.

We should not forget the bottom line in this: bin Laden was justifiably and legally killed by brave and skilled US Navy SEALs. The operation was audacious and meticulous in its planning and execution. President Barack Obama made the call to carry out the raid and his decision was vindicated in spades.

Having said that, the messiness since then has taken much of the sheen off this success, temporarily at least. Here’s a summary of what went wrong once the most difficult bit had been achieved:

1. It took nearly three days to decide not to release the photographs. I think there was a case for not releasing the pictures, though on balance I think disclosure would have been best. But whichever way Obama went on this, the decision should have been made quickly, on Monday. By letting the world and his dog debate the issue for so long and then say no made the administration look indecisive and appear that it had something to hide. It will fuel the conspiracy theories. And the pictures will surely be leaked anyway.

2. To say that bin Laden was armed and hiding behind a wife being used as a human shield was an unforgiveable embellishment. The way it was expressed by John Brennan was to mock bin Laden as being unmanly and cowardly. It turned out to be incorrect and gave fuel, again, to conspiracy theories as well as accusations of cover-ups and illegality. Of all the mistakes of the week, this was by far the biggest.

3. It was a kill mission and no one should have been afraid to admit that. Bin Laden was a dead man as soon as the SEAL Team landed. There’s nothing wrong with that but the Obama administration should have been honest about it rather than spinning tales about bin Laden having a gun, reaching for a gun (the latest) and resisting (without saying how he resisted).

4. Too much information was released, too quickly and a lot of it was wrong. When it made the administration look good, the information flowed freely. When the tide turned, Jay Carney, Obama’s spokesman, clammed up completely. I’m a journalist; I like it when people talk about things. But from the administration’s perspective, it would have been much better to have given a very sparse, accurate description of what happened without going into too much detail, especially about the intelligence that led to the compound (an account which is necessarily suspect).

5. Obama tried to claim too much credit. Don’t get me wrong, he was entitled to a lot of credit. but sometimes less is more and it’s better to let facts speak for themselves. We didn’t need official after official to say how “gutsy” Obama was. Far better to have heaped praise on the CIA and SEALs (which, to be fair, was done most of the time) and talked less about Obama’s decision-making. And a nod to President George W. Bush would have been classy – and good politics for Obama.

6. Proof of death was needed. The whole point of the SEAL operation, rather than a B2 bombing that levelled the compound, was to achieve certainty. The administration has DNA evidence, facial recognition evidence and photographic evidence. Some combination of that evidence should have been collated and released swiftly. It’s not enough to say, effectively, “Trust me, I’m Obama” – especially given all the misinformation that was put out.

7. The mission should have been a ‘capture’ one. Notwithstanding 3. above and the legitimacy of killing bin Laden, I think a capture of bin Laden was probably possible and, in the long term, would have been better – not least because of the intelligence that could have been gleaned from interrogating him and the couriers. My hunch is that Obama didn’t want him alive because there would have been uncomfortable issues to address like whether he should be tried, where he should be held (it would have been Guantanamo – obviously) and the techniques for questioning him.

8. Obama’s rhetoric lurched from jingoistic to moralistic. During the initial announcement, Obama said that by killing bin Laden “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to”. If Bush had said that, he would have been mocked and laughed at, with some justification. But by today Obama was all preachy and holier than thou saying: “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool.  That’s not who we are.  We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”

9. Triggering a torture debate was an avoidable own goal. Following on from 3. by discussing the intelligence, the administration walked into the issue of whether enhanced interrogation techniques yielded important information. That was certainly something they could have done without. Politically, it gave something for Republicans to use against Obama.

10. The muddle over Pakistan. Everyone I talk to with knowledge of these things tells me that Pakistan had to have given the green light for the raid in some form. But the Pakistanis, for good reasons, would not want this made public. Rather than say it would not comment on whether Pakistan had harboured bin Laden or was playing a double game, the White House poured petrol on the flames by encouraging criticism of Pakistan. That might have been deserved, but in terms of managing the region it was impolitic. The Pakistanis are clearly riled and the contradictions between the US and Pakistani accounts, again, fuel the conspiracy theories.

All this has meant that this week’s media story has become one about Obama and the White House more than one about the SEALs, the CIA and what killing bin Laden means. That’s exactly the wrong way round.

It’s not enough to say that Obama arrogantly and falsely took too much credit, or even that Obama didn’t give Bush and the programs Bush developed enough credit: Obama personally demonized programs that were essential to finally getting Osama bin Laden, and even launched a vendetta to destroy the professionals who gave us the vital information via his attorney general.

Waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation” were absolutely vital to nailing bin Laden.  Even the career Democrat who was Barack Obama’s handpicked man to run the CIA openly acknowledged that:

Asked by NBC-TV’s Brian Williams about the information obtained from detainees that led to the bin Laden takedown, Panetta replied:  ‘We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation.  … Clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees.”

When Williams asked whether “waterboarding” was one of those techniques, Panetta replied:  “That’s correct.”

General Michael Hayden, the career intelligence professional who had directed the CIA prior to Leon Panetta, speaking about the CIA program Obama terminated on his second day as president, had this to say:

Michael Hayden said there is no question the CIA program including waterboarding laid the foundation for bin Laden’s capture.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FMR CIA DIRECTOR ON FOX NEWS RADIO (via telephone): That database was kind of like the home depot of intelligence analysis. You know, it was incredibly detailed stuff.

HERRIDGE: As for its role in identifying this compound in Pakistan —

HAYDEN: It would be very difficult for me to conceive of an operation like the one that took place on Sunday that did not include in its preparation information that came out of the CIA detention program.

It is a well-documented fact, confirmed by both the Republican- and Democrat-appointed Directors of Central Intelligence, that waterboarding led to the breakthrough that finally resulted in nailing Osama bin Laden.

Barack Obama wants to demonize the people and procedures that led to Osama bin Laden’s killing even as he takes credit for what could not possibly have happened without the people and procedures that he demonized.  It is a disgrace.

And Obama is STILL continuing to persecute the CIA professionals who got us the intelligence that got bin Laden via his attorney general attack dog.  He won’t even so much as talk to Holder about his rabid attack dog’s rabid determination to criminalize the professionals whose work led to the result Obama is taking credit for.  And that makes Obama a disgrace.

Then there’s the fact that so many of the events surrounding Barack Obama were staged propaganda.

Of the famous photo supposedly showing Obama and his national security team monitoring and directing the SEAL Team that got Osama bin Laden, we now know that:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

“We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

Which is to say that much of the hubub of Obama as commanding figure was simply staged.  It wasn’t real.

Nor were the photos of Obama’s speech announcing that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

And while a liberal might argue that what Obama did has been done before, my response is that there are times when you’ve got to be real and not propaganda, and this was clearly one of those times.

In light of what George Bush did to create programs, build special operations capabilities capable of performing the Pakistan mission that got bin Laden, and even what Barack Obama said during his campaign for president, the decision to capture or kill Osama bin Laden was a no-brainer.

I mean, just imagine the fecal matter that would have struck the rotary oscillator had it emerged that Barack Obama had known for at least six months where Osama bin Laden was – and refused to get him????

That said, the man acted brainless before the decision to get Osama bin Laden, and he’s clearly returned to his brainless form since.

Obama Hope N’ Change Now Means No Food, No Fuel And No Roof Over Your Head

Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” (Revelation 6:6).

Messiah Obama wisely understands that we need sky high energy prices to force us to abandon lifestyles that are bad for the world.  That way he can keep the promise he made to the earth: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  The earth is much bigger than your little children, so Obama can break his competing promises to you and your family.  In fact, your evil if you want him to keep his promises that would prevent him from his messianic duties of healing the whole world.

A gallon of gas was $1.79 when Obama took over from that terrible George Bush.  Unfortunately, it has gone up about 110% under Obama, to $3.88 this week.  Damn that Bush devil!  Can you believe the way he actually wanted to keep the cost of our energy low, so people could do awful stuff like drive to work?  The half of us who sponge off the other half don’t need work, so why should the half we sponge off of?

The United States has more coal than anyone else on the planet by far and away, and half of our nation’s electricity comes from coal.  But America is evil if it uses coal.  Let China build a new coal-fired electricity plant every single week and overtake our economy.  They’ll be bad and our poor, destitute starving children will be good.  That’s why Obama promised liberal San Franciscans, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”  HERES the system any enlighted American would clearly want: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”  It won’t matter how many Americans die in abject poverty; Obama is just what we needed.

China will overtake the U.S. economy by 2016, they’re saying now.  What’s that, you ask?  They were saying China wouldn’t overtake us until 2018 just a few months ago?  You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words “funamentally transform” very well, do you?  But they’ll be bad, because they’ll be burning all that oil and coal and we won’t be.  That makes us better.  And so what if we have to freeze in the dark?

And the messiah to the world also knows that if you can afford gasoline, you might be so selfish as to actually drive.  And evil working poor people usually can’t buy expensive and impractical electric cars, so he must force them by making it hurt for them to drive.  That’s why he appointed an energy secretary who has been trying to“figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” .  And of course when gas is $9 a gallon in Germany, Obama has a long way to go to bring Europe to America.  The only tragedy of soaring gas prices, of course, is that Americans might actually hold Obama responsible.  That’s why he answered the question, “Could the high gas prices help us?” by saying, “I think I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

We already voted for the “hope and change” of $9 a gallon gas in the wonderful fundamentally transformative election of 2008.  And how dare people get angry about that now!!!

Because Obama in his blessed wisdom knows that most Americans are far, far too stupid to understand anything that happens gradually, such as gas rising to the $8 a gallon levels like they are in Europe.  And it doesn’t really matter how much the American people suffer.  Not compared to healing earth and lowering the seas like Moses.  Obama will be better than Moses; he’ll make the level of the whole ocean change!!!!

And then there are the large families that can’t fit all their kids into an electric car or a hybrid anyway.  Obama is right: they should like kill the extra children or something.  Because children should die so the earth can be happier.

And food?  So what if the price of food is going through the roof?  Michelle Obama will tell you that you’re too fat anyway.  You need to lose a whole lot of weight, and her husband’s policies will give you the help you need.  You shouldn’t be allowed to eat half as much food as you eat, anyway.  They don’t get to eat in North Korea, and it’s a socialist worker’s Utopia.  So why should it be any different in the worker’s Utopia your Dear Leader is trying to create for you here?  North Koreans are 5.3 inches (13.5 cm) shorter and 30 pounds (13.5 kg) lighter than those fat overfed capitalist South Korean bastards.  And American kids should be as short and gaunt as their fellow socialist travellers.

Michelle said of his worshipfulness: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  Or full.  Either your stomach or your gas tank.  And I couldn’t agree more.  As we socialists have said in the past, “Arbeit macht frei.”  And just what kind of a bad person are you for not being grateful to him?

I sure hope I’m not putting too much crap in the sandwich I’m feeding you.  Because excrement is a precious commodity in North Korea.  And it should be just as precious here.

But just in case you think the hope and change of Obama’s fundamental transformation is already more than you can bear, it gets even better.  The cost of having a roof over your head is skyrocketing, too.  Which might help you not worry so much about the price of food and the price of fuel.

Renters spending bigger chunk of income on housing
Study says supply of affordable housing has shrunk along with incomes.
Posted by Teresa at MSN Real Estate on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:48 PM

Record numbers of Americans are paying more than half of their pretax income for rental housing, according to a new study.

The study, by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, found that the recession’s toll on incomes had increased more families’ housing-cost burdens. Almost 26% of renters spend more than half of their income on rent and utilities. Another 26.2% spend 30% to 50% of their incomes.

The study’s findings are similar to the findings of the Center for Housing Policy, which found that working families, both renters and homeowners, were spending a larger proportion of their income on housing. [..]

Lower-income renters have historically struggled to find affordable housing and have paid a disproportionate share of their income in rent. But, according to the study, that problem is moving up the income ladder with more lower-middle-income renters and middle-income renters paying 30% to 50% of their incomes for rent and utilities.  […]

Here’s how The Washington Post summarizes the situation:

The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.

In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.

But don’t worry.  Pretty soon, thanks to Obama’s financial policies, you’ll have cash.  Lots and lots of cash.  Wheelbarrows full of it, in fact.

The decline of the U.S. dollar is accelerating rapidly.

Here are a couple of videos worth watching about the exciting fundamentally transformative changes you can hope for coming your way soon!

.

.

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Nazi Party Platform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

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

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

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

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

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

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

Allow me to quote myself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should simply leave you stunned. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pathological Stupidity Of Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Meme Of Taxing The Rich

We need to balance our insane budget deficit, Democrats say.  And it’s time the rich paid their fair share.

All the top 10% of earners paid is 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.  That’s nothing.  It’s those poor poor who suffer the most.  The bottom 50% have to pay a whole bunch of nothing.  It’s just brutal for them every April.  They want to write a check to the government, but only the rich get to do stuff like that.  And the bottom 40% are so screwed by our federal income tax system that they actually are forced to accept free money in addition to paying a whole bunch of nothing.  Unless the Associated Press is lying about it.

Nothing makes me more annoyed than the phrase “give the rich tax cuts.”  Because it presumes that the government owns us and graciously allows us to keep some of what we earn.  The way liberals understand things, they own all the means of production.  They own my labor and whatever I earn from my labor.  And I am lucky if the commissars allow me to keep enough to feed myself.  It derives from a tenant of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  At the core is central planning; government stands above us, it stands above God (which is why consistent Marxists deny God exists and religion is merely an opiate of the masses), and government should redistribute everything according to its divine power.

That is the intrinsic logic of their view that allowing the rich or anyone else to keep more of their own money is considered a cost to the government.  But it ISN’T a cost to the government to allow me to keep more of my own money; anymore than it is a cost to me to allow my next door neighbor to keep more of his own tools.

Obama gave an address in which he paid lip service to reducing spending – even though his budget that he released only TWO MONTHS AGO didn’t reduce any spending at all – and in fact stated that it would be dangerous to do so.  Obama has no plans to cut spending; in fact, the deficit in just the first six months of this year shot up another 15.7%.  Obama is going to do what he’s been doing since he started running for president; he’s going to offer meaningless rhetorical platitudes about cutting spending and reducing costs, while demonizing the rich and demanding that the ONLY people who pay REALLY START TO PAY.

Obama is going to talk about “fairness.”

The ‘fairness’ meme
April 12, 2011 – 4:47 am – by Roger Kimball

We don’t know exactly what Barack Obama is going to say when he fires up his teleprompters at George Washington University tomorrow. The color, we do know, however: it’s red, as in “red ink,” what Mitch Daniels at his speech at CPAC earlier this year called “the new red menace.” (I like to think that the invocation of the old “red menace,” the Communist, socialist one, was deliberate: it is, I would argue, apt.)

The substance of the speech, as ABC notes, is “closely held.” Everybody thinks that there will be at least pro forma acknowledgement that spending on such programs as Medicare and Social Security needs to be reined in. But the big O will also return to one of his favorite themes, a by-word from his 2008 campaign: “increased taxes on the wealthy” (that’s according to “White House officials”).

Here’s my bet: the operative word in Obama’s speech tomorrow night, the mantra that will be repeated endlessly not only by O but also by the left-wing commentariat, is “fairness.” You remember his campaign shtick: the Saddleback Church event, for example, when Rick Warren asked candidates John McCain and B.O. about taxes. “Define rich,” he asked. McCain tossed out an income of $5 million, which elicited derision. But the gravamen of his response came in the elaboration: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”

How different was B.O.’s response: What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”

“Our fair share.” That, as I noted at the time, is B.O.’s refrain. “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” It’s a small step from the invocation of “our fair share” to Obama’s call for a tax on “the windfall profits of oil companies,” a tax increase on capitals gains, elimination of the tax on Social Security tax, etc., etc.

The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing revenue but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. William McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal back then, recalled Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that raising taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.”

McGurn observed:

[I]t doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama’s advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes — the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to the socialistically inclined.

It worked in 2008. Let’s see how it goes down tomorrow. Over the last two years, Barack Obama has presided over an economic Armageddon. Everyone knows about that $14 trillion that is the federal debt. Few people, I suspect, really appreciate what that unimaginable figure represents. And the kicker is, $14 trillion is only a tithe of the trouble. As Kevin Williamson and others have pointed out, the country’s real debt, when you facotr in state indebtedness and unfunded so-called “entitlement” liabilities, is closer to $130 trillion. That horror-movie figure is just too awful to contemplate, so I will draw a veil.

[…]

For the record, I wrote an article entitled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” in which I documented that every single time the United States has reduced the income tax rate, federal revenues have gone up.  I go back to Warren Harding to document that.  I include John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush – who increased federal revenues by lowering tax rates.

But this recurring documented fact of U.S. history is tantamount to rocket science to liberals.  Because they adhere to the entirely unrealistic premise that if I were to double your taxes, I would collect double the revenue, because people wouldn’t react to the tax increase by altering their behavior.

Recent developments give me a crystal clear example of why liberals couldn’t be more wrong:

Gas Price Rise, Americans Drive Less
By Rachel Smith
Posted: Apr 12, 2011 10:30 a.m.

Americans are taking rising gas prices seriously. They’re already driving less, “reversing what had been a steady increase in demand for fuel,” the Associated Press writes. “For five weeks in a row, they have bought less gas than they did a year ago.”

The average price of gas is an obvious indicator of why national fuel consumption is dropping. At the end of March, AAA reported that gas reached an average of $3.60 nationally. Today, AAA says the national average is $3.79 for regular grade, a 29 cent jump in about two weeks. Business Week reports that many analysts forecast that these numbers will worsen, and expect that consumers could pay as much as $5 a gallon this year due to political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, which supply much of the United States’ oil. The $5 per gallon speculation has been floating around the industry for some time, but last year, CNN stated that former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister predicted that Americans could pay $5 a gallon by 2012. Analysts have bumped that date up.

“Drivers are already reacting to the change,” writes Kicking Tires. “In the first week of April, consumption was down 3.6%, or 2.4 million gallons of gasoline,” based on data from MasterCard Spending Pulse.

One of the best ways to combat rising gas prices is to drive less, but there are other simple things you can do. […]

Even uneducated, ignorant and frankly stupid people understand this incredibly basic concept: cost goes up, activity goes down.  And yet you have liberals with PhDs staffing agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office utterly fail to understand that if they make taxes go up, they will end up with reactions that will invariably produce less revenue for the government.

If even high-school dropouts understand that if the price of gasoline goes up, they need to drive less, how is it that brilliant businessmen won’t realize that if their tax rates go up, they need to protect their money?

Here’s another analogy that might be spot on the money.  Suppose your going to work and a mugger jumps you and takes all your money.  As he’s walking off, counting your (well, his now) cash, he says, “I hope you’ve got as much dough tomorrow, because I’m going to mug you again.”  Now, if you’re smart, you won’t be happening by that way at all the next day.  But if you’ve absolutely got to go that way to get to work, will you have as much money that next day?  Not if you’ve got a single functioning brain cell.  On my analogy, if you figure out some other way to get to work, that’s tax avoidance.  If you stash your cash somewhere so you don’t have it for the robber to take, that’s tax sheltering.  And if you’re too stupid to understand that this is what people do when their taxes go up, that’s liberalism.

The more taxes increase, the more activities that were previously not worth doing – such as sheltering assets, moving assets overseas, investing in collectibles, purchasing tax-exempt investment vehicles, or just dodging taxes – become worth doing.

And so,what happens every single time happens yet again.  Raise taxes expecting more revenue, get less revenue, and hurt the economy in the process by penalizing productivity and investment risk and thereby restricting growth.  And when you encourage growth by reducing the tax burden and allowing people to keep what they earn, lo and behold, cetaris parabis, there is a surge in activity, an increase in economic growth and a corresponding increase in federal tax revenue.

I say “cetaris parabis” because if you throw in a socialist Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that undermine something as vital as our housing mortgage market by imposing morally and fiscally insane policies until the system comes crashing down, such as what occurred leading up the crash in 2008, the best tax rates in the world can’t save the system.

Here are just a few articles I wrote on that subject, in order of date written with the earliest listed first:

Biden: ‘We Misread The Economy, And It’s All Republicans’ Fault

AEI Article: How Fannie And Freddie Blew Up The Economy

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

We need to have intelligent economic policies.  If we don’t have such policies, we’re going to struggle regardless of our tax rates.

Quickly, another liberal policy that will not even possibly work is the Federal Reserve QE2 (that’s the second shot at quantitative easing) that artificially reduces interest rates by artificially increasing the money supply in order to increase lending.

Here’s the problem with that.  Short term, it might seem to work.  The stock market looks at the apparent backstopping of our economy and follows the leader (Uncle Sam) up until the ship starts to sink.  After which they will sell, sell, sell.  But the ship ALWAYS sinks.  Why?  Because you have a lot more dollars chasing after the same supply of finite goods and services (if anything, in the last few years, we have a LOWER supply of finite goods and services).  So what happens?  More dollars chasing less stuff.  That’s inflation.  It will INVARIABLY require more devalued dollars to buy the same things.  The more you inflate the money supply, the worse that inflation gets.  And we have massively increased our money supply.

Let me go back to what I wrote going on a year ago now:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs.  And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation.  Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate.  Why?  Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued.  There’s simply no way it can’t be.  If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire.  The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems.  If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency.  And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins.  Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

And let me point out that we’re looking at huge inflation now – even as Obama declares victory over the recession – in insanely rising gas prices, food prices, clothes prices, all prices:

Hope ‘n Change Coming To Fruition: Cost Of EVERYTHING About To Go Up

Instability, Food Riots And A Heaping Dose Of ‘I Told You So’

Just like I said would happen.  And just like the long list of economists said would happen when they begged Obama not to do the $3.27 trillion stimulus.

This phenomenon is going on all over the world because most of the world is tied to the U.S. dollar – the currency that Obama has been poisoning hoping for short-term political gains.

And, again, a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts (which doesn’t help businesses and individuals who are desperately searching for consistency so they can predict their costs) is not going to help us out of this kind of moral and fiscal insanity.

But what we are going to see is Obama now demagoguing all the massive economic failure that his own policies are responsible for creating in the first place to demand that the rich “pay their fair share.”

New Jobs Figures A Real April Fools Day Joke On America

This is a joke that needs a little explaining.  But the real joke is on anyone fool enough to fall for the charades:

U.S. employment jumps in March, jobless rate falls
Apr 1, 2011
Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employment recorded a second straight month of solid gains in March and the jobless rate fell to a two-year low of 8.8 percent, marking a decisive shift in the labour market that should help to underpin the economic recovery.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 216,000 last month, the largest increase since May, the Labour Department said on Friday. January and February employment figures were revised to show 7,000 more jobs than previously reported.

The strong job gains come amid indications the economy suffered a minor setback early in the year as bad weather and rising energy prices dampened activity.

“All the evidence is pointing to a strengthening labour market,” said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston.

First of all, remind me never, EVER to do business with John Hancock Financial Services.

Just to point out how incredibly and massively biased the “experts” who are spinning these numbers are, let me quote this same Bill Cheney from the same John Hancock from when Bush was president and the unemployment rate was more than THREE POINTS LOWER:

“We were expecting to celebrate New Year’s and instead got slapped with a pink slip,” said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

The subtitle of that CNN Money article was “Jobs grow by just 1,000 in December, although unemployment rate drops to 5.7%.”

So, for those who are keeping score, when liberals are allowed to have a voice, 8.8% unemployment is good; 5.7% is bad.

I’m just saying: this couldn’t be more biased, full-of-crap propaganda by people who write the news based entirely on their leftwing ideology.  And they manage to track down economists who do the same thing.  And voilà: a expert-confirmed news story.

And this is just part of a very long, very well-established pattern of mainstream media “journalists” denouncing Republican economic data and blessing Democrat economic data even when the Republican data is BETTER than the Democrat numbers.

Here’s an interesting factoid that doesn’t seem to get any mention in the mainstream media: Unless I’m seriously mistaken, the unemployment rate has gone down every month since Republicans took control of The House in January:

Unemployment was if anything going UP.  And then Republicans took over, and whammo.  It started going down.  But Republicans didn’t receive so much as a scintilla of credit from the mainstream media.  It’s just amazing.

That’s first.  Second, there’s the facts that you have to dig for:

Still, the job gains haven’t led many people who stopped looking for work during the recession to start again. Fewer than two-thirds of American adults are either working or looking for work — the lowest participation rate in 25 years. […]

The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since November, the sharpest four-month drop since 1983. Stepped-up hiring is the main reason. But a more sobering factor is that the number of people who are either working or seeking a job remains surprisingly low for this stage of the recovery.

People without jobs who aren’t looking for one aren’t counted as unemployed. Once they start looking again, they’re classified as unemployed, and the unemployment rate can go back up. That can happen even if the economy is adding jobs.

Just 64.2 percent of adults have a job or are looking for one — the lowest participation rate since 1984. The number has been shrinking for four years. It suggests many people remain discouraged about their job prospects even as hiring is picking up.

This magnificent unemployment rate success largely reflects the fact that more and more people are just dropping out of the employment picture altogether.  And three of the four years this has been going on have been going on under Obama.

Here’s a graph of the labor participation rate:

Note how it skyrocketed under Ronald Reagan.  Note how it went DOWN under Bill Clinton until the Republicans OWNED the Democrats in 1994 and took over both the House and the Senate.  Note how it went down under Bush following the Dotcom bust (and the 9/11 attack) that Bush inherited from Bill Clinton.

As I point out in a previous article:

George Bush inherited the policies that led to the 9/11 disaster only months into his presidency.  George Bush inherited the Dotcom disaster that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq index along with $7.1 trillion in American wealth that was just vaporized as a result of Bill Clinton’s economy.  And rather than spend the next two years blaming his predecessor, Bush cut taxes and turned the economy around.  At least until Democrat policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Democrat refusal to reform and regulate Democrat-created Fannie and Freddie brought America crashing down.

Why don’t we blame the president who actually sued banks to force them to make bad loans to people who couldn’t afford the home loans that the banks were forced to provide???

By the standard the Democrats used to demonize George Bush in 2004, Barack Obama is the worst president in American history.

But the media prefers “the unexpected” to “the truth.”

You never hear how the first two years of Clinton were such a failure that he got the worst shellacking in fifty years; and then suddenly under Republican control things got mysteriously better as THEY cut spending and balanced the budget mostly over Clinton’s vetoes.  You just keep hearing that “Clinton balanced the budget.”

Note how Bush brought that declining labor participation back up after his tax cuts were passed and began to take effect.  And how that has happened AGAIN as the successful Republican-Bush tax rates were continued and things suddenly got miraculously better.

But let’s consider some other things.

We added 216,000 jobs last month.  Congratulations.  Here’s how many NEW unemployment claims were added every single WEEK in March:

Something just seems so wrong with this picture.  It makes that 216,000 jobs being added during the entire month of March just seem really, really sucky.

Somewhat similarly, the replacement rate due to population growth, etc. is 300,000 jobs a month:

“In order to make a real dent in the unemployment rate, economists estimate that at least 300,000 jobs need to be created each month.”

Meaning, we need to create 300,000 jobs a month just to stay even. But we created 216,000 jobs in March, which caused the unemployment rate to drop.  How’s that?!?!?

For the record, Gallup reported unemployment at a far more believable 10% in March.

What is truly being heralded here as a giant success is that millions of Americans are simply giving up and abandoning the work force altogether in Obama’s God damn America.