What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

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

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: “unexpected.”   But it WASN’T “unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILURE.  They keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

---

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

---

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

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

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

[To read that article in its entirety, click here].

When Romney said that the small businesses that create jobs was going to be hurt by Obama’s taxes, he was RIGHT.  In a different article available here, I document the facts from official sources and then say:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

Romney pointed out in the debate that half of all jobs created by small business and a quarter of ALL THE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA would have their income taxes skyrocket under Barack Obama.

When Romney said that Obama’s taxation was going to destroy 700,000 small business jobs, he was RIGHT.

Which is why 85% of small businesses agree with Romney and disagree with Obama that Obama’s policies have led America down the wrong track.

Which is why 64% of small businesses are saying they plan to simply wait Obama out rather than create jobs while he’s trying to ruin them.

Obama deceitfully talks about giving tax cuts to small businesses when in fact he is actually massively taxing them.

Obama IS helping small businesses … into BANKRUPTCY.  And Obama says the recession is behind us while small businesses are going belly up in droves.

Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the debate last night.  Nobody had EVER won a debate by the margin that Romney won by in the history of CNN.  If you have any decency and care about people who need a job and love this country at all, please cast your vote for Mitt Romney.

Since 1976, Democrat Presidents Have A 2-1 ‘Lead’ Invoking Executive Privilege

How many times have presidents asserted executive privilege?

Here’s your list:

Jimmy Carter: 4 times
Ronald Reagan: 3 times
George H.W. Bush: 1 time
Bill Clinton: 14 times
George W. Bush 2: 6 times
Barack Obama: 2 times

For the record, Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent Desiree Rogers from testifying.  So this is at least the second time.  It’s hard to find out if he did it more; the mainstream media suffers from collectivist (which is very much like “collective,” only for Marxist propagandists) amnesia whenever it comes to Obama.

So I – being a mathematician with skills that dwarf any liberal who clearly can’t count or they’d know how wrong they are about Obama’s job numbers and his debt numbers and his deficit numbers and ObamaCare numbers and his budget numbers – took the complicated step of doing the math.

Democrats easily win the cover-up game, 20 to 10.  In sports parlance, that’s a blowout.  When it comes to lying and cover-ups, Democrats are the Harlem Globetrotters to the Republican Party’s Washington Generals.  Only in this game, the Harlem Globetrotters cheat like absolute fiends while angrily and self-righteously denouncing the Washington Generals for cheating.

So it again proves my constant statement of fact that to be a Democrat is to be a massive abject hypocrite.  Here’s Harry Reid saying that when Bush used executive privilege it was like saying, “I’m KING”:

And then there’s “King” Obama – who was mysteriously once a “harsh critic” of executive privilege:

This was back when Democrats ran Congress and therefore, in Obama’s words, it was “very appropriate” to investigate the president. Back then, in the soon-to-be “King” Obama’s demagoguery, if Bush cited privilege he was “trying to hide behind executive privilege every time something shaky is taking place.”

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Hypocrite-in-Chief is revealed for what he truly is (hint: four letter words work best).

And, for the record, you aint seen nothin’ yet on “King Obama” and executive privilege.  Obama will be using that sucker many more times, I assure you.  Because coming up is the fact that the Obama White House repeatedly leaked incredibly damaging secrets to favorable press such as the New York Times in order to bolster his image as a “strong leader” no matter how much it damaged American national security.  He’ll have to protect his lies on that one in order to avoid impeachment, too.

The only possible way to keep Obama from breaking Bill Clinton’s previously believed un-breakable record of fourteen will be if “King Obama” is a one-term president.  Because it’s usually in that second term that – in Obama’s “reverend’s” and “spiritual mentor’s” words – “the chickens come home to roost.”

Just imagine “King” Obama actually demonizing George Bush for something that Bill Clinton had just done more than twice as many times (that’s 133.33% more often for you sports fans who appreciate your statistics) as Bush did.  When I say “Democrats are cockroaches,” I know it’s wrong, and I sincerely apologize to all members belonging to the class periplaneta americana for such a harsh comparison.

Think of that: Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times.  That’s like Wilt Chamberlain’s rebounding record, only for cheating lying dirtbag slimeball weasel presidents.  But while Chamberlain’s records will likely never be broken, simply because nobody will ever physically dominate the way Wilt did, Barry Hussein is up to the challenge when it comes to pathological dishonesty.  “Hope and change” means believing Obama can dive deeper into that giant manure pile than Bill Clinton believed was even humanly possible.  I never dreamed that anyone could lie like Bill Clinton … until this turd squirted out onto the national scene.

Update, 6/24/12: Obama just “unofficially” invoked executive privilege for the third time.  After using it to keep Congress from seeing documents exposing his crimes, he just invoked it again to keep Congress from listening to the testimony of an ex-staff member.

Remember This When Democrats Try To Morph Gov. Rick Perry Into A Clone Of George W. Bush

The Wall Street Journal has already reported that their inside sources say that Governor Rick Perry of Texas will run for president this year.  And I hope he does.  His record of having created 38% of all the jobs in the entire NATION since Obama’s “recovery” began will make this proven leader a very compelling candidate.

He will immediately head to the top of my list if he runs.  And nothing would make me more exited than to see him select Michelle Bachmann for his VP.

That said, I’ve already heard how the Democrat Party and the mainstream media intend to attack Perry and Bachmann.  In both cases, they will do everything they can to link these two candidates to other favorite liberal bogeymen.

For Michelle Bachmann, why, she’s just like Sarah Palin.  They’ve already tried to use the EXACT same narrative to demean her.  Like Palin, Bachmann is “Barbie with fangs.”

For Rick Perry, why, he’s from Texas.  And isn’t that the same state that George W. Bush came from?  And therefore isn’t Rick Perry just another George Bush?  And of course the American people are tired of having their presidents come from Texas.

As ridiculous and factually wrong as this line of “reasoning” is, it appears to be the Democrats’ primary campaign against Perry.

I said “factually wrong” because it is just plain factually wrong.  Not that that ever stopped Democrats before.

The LA Times sub-title says, “despite obvious similararities”  in its comparison of Perry and Bush.  Let’s look at how much they manage to back up these “similarities.”  In the entire half page article, this was the sum total of “differences”: “The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms.”  AND THAT’S IT.  Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

The rest of the article is ALL difference, and it’s what makes all the difference.  So with that said, see what completely different men these two truly are:

Rick Perry has a history of acrimony with George W. Bush
As he considers a presidential run, some have tried to tie the Texas governor to his predecessor. Despite obvious similarities, their considerable differences have left a lingering hostility between the two men.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
June 30, 2011

Reporting from Austin, Texas— Rick Perry was in Iowa three years ago, talking up a favored candidate, when the subject turned to George W. Bush, the president and a fellow Republican who preceded Perry as Texas governor.

Bush, or “George,” as Perry called him, was no fiscal conservative — “never was” — and his work on tort reform, a subject dear to Republican hearts, paled next to Perry’s achievements, the governor said.

“I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99,” Perry went on, elaborately ticking the years off on his fingers, “George Bush was spending money!”

Those are fighting words among Republicans — especially Texas Republicans, who pride themselves on their stinginess — and even more so to Bush loyalists who, years later, still simmer over Perry’s off-the-cuff remarks. (How dare he slap the president like that, the Bush faithful fume, and refer to the leader of the free world as George!)

If Perry runs for president, his critics hope to tie him to Bush and those who delivered the self-assured Texan from Austin to the Oval Office.

“Is America ready for a president who was George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, who was George W. Bush’s successor as governor … and who, like George W. Bush, was also a Karl Rove puppet?” taunts Garry South, a Democratic consultant, referring to Bush’s strategist.

But that jibe ignores what has been, at best, a cool relationship between Bush and Perry, and a lingering hostility between their top political advisors.

The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms. But the two come from starkly different backgrounds, approach politics in utterly different fashions and even draw their support from different parts of the GOP. It is the difference, said a campaign consultant who has worked with both, between Yale and Texas A&M, between Phillips Academy Andover and Paint Creek High School.

To a certain upper crust of Republican, “Perry is the low-rent country cousin” who lacks Bush’s prep-school polish, said R.G. Ratcliffe, a longtime student of Texas politics who is writing a book about Perry. “They see him as a hick and are embarrassed having someone like that as governor.”

Privately, the former president has spoken of his successor as a political lightweight and someone not all that bright. Perry scoffs behind closed doors at Bush’s privileged background and popularity among country-club Republicans, suggesting the New England native is a faux Texan.

Perry’s story is the kind of up-by-his-bootstraps saga that Bush might have scripted for himself, had he been able.

He grew up in West Texas, in a farm town so small it literally was not on the state map until Perry, as governor, put it there. Life was austere; Perry was 6 before the family had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear Perry wore to college.

He graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in animal science, joined the Air Force, then returned to farming. On a whim he ran for state Legislature in 1984, as a Democrat, and won.

In 1990, under Rove’s tutelage, Perry switched parties and was elected agriculture commissioner. Eight years later, Perry ran for lieutenant governor. By then, Rove was working for Bush; the conflict between their political camps grew out of that year’s races.

Bush had been elected governor in 1994, and was already eyeing a run for president. Facing a weak opponent, he wanted to win reelection overwhelmingly and lift his numbers among blacks and Latinos to show crossover appeal. Perry faced the state’s popular Democratic controller, John Sharp, and had a much tougher time. The Bush and Perry teams squabbled over polling, voter targeting and the hard-edged tone of Perry’s campaign.

In the end, Bush won by 1.4 million votes. Perry scratched out victory by fewer than 70,000. Afterward, there were harsh words; today Rove and Dave Carney, a top Perry strategist, are bitter foes.

Perry took over as governor when Bush resigned to become president. (He did nothing to improve relations by hastening the Bush family’s exit from their living quarters.)

Both men hewed to the tenets of Texas Republicanism: low taxes, small government and limited regulation. But Bush prided himself on his ability to work with Democrats, while Perry took a much more partisan approach.

Bush also showed a greater willingness to spend on programs, especially education, with potential long-term benefits. Perry, by contrast, has cut billions from public education to help balance the state budget.

The governor has little use for the philosophy Bush dubbed “compassionate conservatism.” At a recent foray to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, he told a cheering crowd that conservatives should “stand up” and “stop apologizing” for their beliefs.

Perry has long been a favorite of Christian conservatives, embracing their issues with a zeal Bush lacked. He also has strong support in the “tea party” movement; Perry was at a local rally in 2009 when he broached the prospect of his state seceding from the union, a statement he later disavowed.

More recently, Perry used an emergency session of the Legislature to push for tighter restrictions on abortion and legislation to criminalize aggressive airport searches. The pat-down bill died Wednesday.

To supporters, Perry’s move demonstrated a fealty to fundamental principles, not least reining in what they consider the overly obtrusive federal government. To critics, including some in the Bush camp, it was another case of showmanship triumphing over substance.

For all of that, however, Carney said accounts of a Bush-Perry spat are overblown.

“They’re different people, bringing different experiences and philosophies to the process,” Carney said. “But they’re not at odds. That’s a silly, overblown urban myth that’s developed a life of its own.”

But last year’s gubernatorial contest was telling. Perry was bidding for an unprecedented third term. His opponent, in an unusual primary challenge, was U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Rove served as a Hutchison advisor, along with other Bush loyalists. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Hutchison. (George W. Bush stayed neutral.) Even so, Perry came from far behind and not only beat Hutchison, but did so overwhelmingly.

Carney insists there are no hard feelings. If Perry decides to run for president, he said, he will not focus on his Republican rivals or the governor he followed in office.

“[President] Obama is the person we’re trying to defeat,” Carney said. “That’s what Republicans are looking for.”

Since I believe that Gov. Perry WILL run, and since I believe we’ve already seen the “Bush III” attack that will be used against him, it seemed to me that this article would be worth preserving.  I have learned from hard experience that liberal newspapers have a bizarre tendency to conveniently purge their archives of stories like this one.

Perry and Bush not only have gigantic differences between them, not only do they come from completely different set of key supporters, not only do they have vastly different visions of what it means to be “conservative,” but Perry’s clear disdain for many of Bush’s policies would make a comparison of the two completely off limits if either the Democrat Party or the mainstream media that serve as the propagandists for the Democrat Party were honest.  Only, of course, they aren’t honest, are they?

If Perry enters the race, you can bet that we’ll start seeing him “morphed” into George W. Bush.  Becuase George W. Bush is the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of the Democrat Party.  Democrats keep saying that George Bush was the one who drove the economy into a ditch.  And so, if Rick Perry is George Bush, he’ll do the same thing.  The fact that that is completely wrong, and the fact that Rick Perry has created 40% of the ENTIRE NATION’S new jobs, won’t matter to these lying demagogues.

Just remember they will be abject liars when they do it.  And that even the liberal Los Angeles Times recognized that it would be a lie in the body of its story about the so-called “similarities.”

One of the things that I’ve found about mainstream media is that they often WILL report a story that favors a conservative.  The major difference is that, when it favors the conservaitve, they will cover it once and drop it.  And that story just goes away.  But if if HURTS conservatives or favors liberals, they will run such stories again and again and again.

Don’t forget what the Los Angeles Times said about Rick Perry being a completely different candidate than George W. Bush.

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.

Obama’s ‘Hope And Change’ At Work: Most Americans (Correctly) Believe Our Best Days Are Now Behind Us

History reminds us of a time – not all that long ago – when a charismatic leader promised a fundamental transformation that brought hope to a nation.

The leaders’s name was Adolf Hitler.  It didn’t end well.  Seriously.

The kind of fascistic irrationally euphoric Utopian rhetoric of Obama –

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”

– hasn’t seemed to work out very well in the real world.  I mean who talks like that but a fascist demagogue promising a false Utopia, anyway?  Not that most liberals have any clue whatsoever about the real world, mind you.

The evidence is crystal clear that Obama is a fascist and a demagogue.  But the mainstream media is every bit as unlikely to tell the truth about Obama as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was likely to tell the truth about their Fuhrer.

The New York Times once said – as part of the irrational fascistic hype surrounding Obama – that:

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

Did Obama ever once come close to actually fulfilling that “core presidential promise”???

How about this: within 24 days of Obama assuming the presidency, The Wall Street Journal was rightly able to say this about our “transcending” figure:

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package

It wasn’t even a month after assuming the presidency that Obama began to dismiss the Republicans he had promised to reach out to:

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

It was barely only a month after assuming the presidency that Obama began to thumb his nose at the Republicans he had promised to reach out to:

 When [Republican Rep. Eric] Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

Were those really the words that would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years”???  In taking that stand, was there actually any chance whatsoever that Obama would “end the partisan and ideological wars”???  Is anyone frankly so morally and intellectually stupid to see these tactics as they way to “build a new governing majority”???

And of course, shortly after the American people rejected Obama in the largest shallacking in modern American history and voted against the Democrat Party in droves, Nancy Pelosi began to further degenerate into fascism (where elections shouldn’t matter unless the fascists win them), saying: “elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”

And then we proceeded to see Democrats and liberals behave far more like fascists than people who gave a damn about elections or the consequences of elections in Wisconsin.

I think of the fact that Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  But the moment he seized power, “elections didn’t matter as much as they should have.”

Barack Obama is a man who has personally repeatedly demonized George W. Bush, Republicans, entire industries, businesses, and even medical doctors (remember how they amputate people’s feet and yank out their tonsils just to illegitimately profit?).  As a Senator, he personally attacked George Bush for his failure of leadership for having to raise the debt ceiling; now he’s personally attacking anyone who acts as cynically and despicably as he acted.  Obama personally demonized George Bush for trampling on the Constitution for Iraq even though Congress had directly authorized his actions; but this same cynical demagogue would attack Libya without any congressional authorization whatsoever.  Obama lectured Republicans that it hurt the country and the essential political debate to demagogue the other side with health care, only to viciously attack the Republicans the first time he thought it would politically help him to do so.  Rep Ryan – whom he invited to his speech just to single him out for attack – said, “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what [Obama] said is necessary to fix this problem.”  And Obama doesn’t just demonize his opponents; he falsely demonizes his opponents by telling demonstrable lies.

As I said, Obama is a fascist bully and a cynical demagogue.  And yet the mainstream media has the unmitigated chutzpah to continue to insanely depict this cynical, lying, hypocrite demagogue as an inspirational figure.

The American people and the mushroom have something in common: both are kept in the dark and fed manure.

So you can understand why the American people – for all the information available to them – are so terribly ignorant about just what the hell is going on in our political system.

But as misinformed and lied-to as Americans are when it comes to the sea of lies they are presented with as “news,” they are still aware that fewer of them have jobs, fewer of them have homes, their food cost more, their fuel cost more and that the quality of their lives are rapidly slipping away under the policies of a failed president and his failed party.

America’s Best Days
Those Confident That America’s Best Days Lie Ahead Down to 31%
Monday, April 25, 2011

Voter confidence that the nation’s best days are still to come has fallen to its lowest level ever.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 31% believe America’s best days are in the future. That’s down three points from last month and is the lowest result found in polling since late 2006.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe America’s best days are in the past, also the highest measurement in over four years. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Separate polling finds that only 22% of Likely Voters believe the United States is now heading in the right direction. That ties the lowest level found during Barack Obama’s presidency.

While majorities of Republicans (68%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (52%) believe America’s best days are in the past, a plurality of Democrats (45%) thinks its best days still lie ahead.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of white voters believe America’s best days have come and gone, but the same number of black voters (58%) feel the opposite is true.

[…]

And of course, it is true: America’s days truly ARE behind us as long as Barack Hussein Obama and as long as Democrats are able to continue to lead.  Either Democrats will go down, or America will go down.

But, liberals say, it was BUSH who made the economy fail.  Two things: 1) how many years should that line of garbage continue to succeed?  And 2) it was never true to begin with (also see here).

Do you know that Democrats had total control of both the House and the Senate from 2006 until 2010???

George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to warn Congress that unless we got control of the out-of-control Democrat-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out-of-control housing and housing mortgage market that it was poisoning with piles of bad debt, our economy would go under.  The problem had festered because Bush had reappointed the first black Fannie Mae CEO because of political correctness.  Franklin Raines was a failure and a corrupt fraud who disguised massive debt.  Further, fearing the same political correctness, Republicans had allowed themselves to be repeatedly stymied in their attempts to reform the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie and Freddie as Democrats screamd “racism.”  John McCain was if anything even more clear in 2006 when there was still time to fix the developing crisis.  McCain wrote (in 2006):

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

McCain asked, “Who would actually pay this massive debt for these incredibly risky liberal policies if Fannie or Freddie could not?’  And we now have the answer to that question, don’t we???

Even the liberal New York Times recognized the threat posed by Fannie and Freddie.  And Peter Wallison all but predicted the collapse as early as 1999:

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

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

 The same Peter Wallison who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

Wallison was 100% correct, and had the FACT that he had accurately predicted the collapse to give him further credibility.  Democrats were 100% wrong.  Barney Frank was one of the unanimous Nazi-goosetepping Democrats who said stuff like this:

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

Basically a MONTH before Fannie and Freddie went bankrupt and started the entire housing mortgage market collapse in 2008, Barney Frank was still singing the same idiotic tune:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid.”

John McCain correctly predicted a disaster.  Barney Frank was still spouting outrageous lies just one month before the bottom fell out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then caused the bottom to fall out of the entire economy.  Republicans were right and Democrats were disasterously wrong.  And the American people responded by electing Democrats and purging Republicans.  Because we were lied to, and because we have become a bad people who believe lies.

Democrats blocked every single move by both the Republicans and by George Bush.  They actually threatened filibusters to prevent Bush from fixing the broken system that failed and it was DEMOCRATS who took our economy down the drain.

And Senator Barack Obama had more campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter time than anyone in Congress.  And he also had more campaign money from Lehman Brothers – a dirty Wall Street player that went belly up – in a shorter time than anyone else in Congress.  Obama was bought and owned by the people who blew up our economy.

Only a nation of fools would have voted for this inexperienced Marxist fool to run our nation.  But a nation of fools believed the worst media propaganda campaign since Joseph Goebbels plied his trade.

Even fools feel pain when they keep getting burned, though.  And Obama is burning America alive.

We are slipping.  Even fools can feel it:

26 Apr, 2011, 11.27AM IST,IANS
China’s economy to surpass that of US by 2016: IMF

BEIJING: The Chinese economy will surpass that of the US by 2016, the International Monetary Fund ( IMF )) has predicted.According to the IMF’s forecast, based on “purchasing power parities”, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) will rise from $11.2 trillion in 2011 to $19 trillion in 2016, while the American economy will increase from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion.

China’s share of the global economy will ascend from 14 percent to 18 percent, while the US’ share will descend to 17.7 percent, China Daily reported.

The Economist had predicted in December 2010 that China would overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP in 2019.

 At the same time all of the other growing disasters is taking place, we have a crisis in the price of oil.  And Obama has done nothing but exacerbate that crisis with energy policies that are even more destructive than Jimmy Carter’s.

Do you feel your nation growing smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker?  That is the hope and change you voted for.

In the time that Obama has been president, we’ve gone from predicting China would overtake us by 2030, to 2019, to just five years away.  And mark my words, it will be moved up yet again, before they overtake Obama’s ignorant stupidity even faster than that.

Under Obama, and due to his immoral and criminally reckless policies, we are spending like fools and at the same time insanely inflating our money supply (under the euphamism of “qantitative easing” or QE2.  And here are the results:

APRIL 23, 2011
Dollar’s Decline Speeds Up, With Risks for U.S.
BY TOM LAURICELLA

The U.S. dollar’s downward slide is accelerating as low interest rates, inflation concerns and the massive federal budget deficit undermine the currency.

With no relief in sight for the dollar on any of those fronts, the downward pressure on the dollar is widely expected to continue.
The dollar fell nearly 1% against a broad basket of currencies this week, following a drop of similar size last week. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index closed at its lowest level since August 2008, before the financial crisis intensified.

“The dollar just hasn’t had anything positive going for it,” said Alessio de Longis, who oversees the Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund.

Thanks to your fool-in-chief president, your dollar is worth less and less.  And your gas and your food cost more and more.  Food now costs more than at any time since 1974, thanks to the Democrat messiah.

Or maybe he’s not such a fool.  Because maybe this is what he wanted all along.  Read this article on “the Cloward and Piven Strategy” created by liberals/progressives to implode America written in 2008 (you could also read my own article written in 2009).  And then see what top SEIU official Steven Lerner – who left the “workers of the world unite; it’s not just a slogan anymore” radical union at the same time #1 White House visitor Andy Stern did – had to say about deliberately trying to cause a financial crisis that will implode America.

The United States of America is dangerously close to complete collapse.  One wrong move, one piece of bad news, just one thing, could send us into a collapse that will be impossible to stop.

And we are either being led by a total fool, or even worse, we are being led by a man who is actively plotting to collapse America to impose a radical leftwing ideology, and who doesn’t care one iota more about the American people than Adolf Hitler cared about the German people.

I’m sure you have probably picked up on my angry tone.  I am angry; I’m beyond angry.  Why?  Because I see the beast foretold by the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation coming.  I see the collapse coming, and the Antichrist riding in on his white horse to save the day.  And I see that the same liberals, the same progressives, the same Democrats who caused this collapse will be the ones to welcome this coming world dictator.  And it will be these same Democrats who call for the American people to take his mark on their hands or on their foreheads so that they can join the rest of the world and buy and sell.

Rest assured, Obama’s reckless fiscal policies are not just undermining America; they are undermining the entire world.  The unrest in the Middle East (which again says “Last days as foretold by the Bible” all over it) is directly attributed to Obama’s monetary policies, according to the G-2o and the central banks.

Barack Obama is a false messiah.  The Democrat Partyis the party of hell.  And they are leading us to hell on earth right now.  Today.

And we are voting for hell.

You mark my words.  It won’t be long now.  The beast is coming.  And if you vote Democrat, you have already voted for him by paving the way for his soon-arrival.

Get ready for hell.

10 Questions Obama Won’t Answer In His Libya Speech

1. How is your Libya policy not more “Bush-ish” and hawkish than George W. Bush’s with your unprecedented standard of intervening in the Middle East whenever non-American lives are threatened?  How is this not “humanitarian imperialism” and far worse than anything Bush did given the undefined and open-ended nature of it?

“By almost every metric you can use in terms of being a muscular executive – acting alone without congressional authority, extending the Bush policies overseas, particularly in the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq – he’s been more hawkish than George Bush,” Halperin remarked.

2. Why are we in Libya when even your own Secretary of Defense clearly states that it is not in the United States’ vital national interests to do so?

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States. but it was an interest.”

3. Why are we in the middle of Libya’s civil war, given that the man leading the rebels actually fought against American troops in Afghanistan and his fighters have al Qaeda links?

… Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. […]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…

4. Why shouldn’t you be impeached using your own or now Vice President Biden’s standard that you used to demonize George W. Bush when you were both Senators?

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.

Joe Biden: “This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that – I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.”

5. Will we get involved in other wars as dictators dictate?  What about Syria and the Sudan and so many other regions where leaders routinely brutalize their own people?  Will some dictator carefully reading over your speech understand what your policy is?  Will such a dictator realize he’d better not do “x” because he will have to deal with the power of the United States?

6.  How will the mission in Libya not be a complete failure and embarassment to the United States given your announcement that “Gaddafi must go“?  And is it or is it not our policy for Gaddafi to be forced out of power?

7. When exactly – and I mean when exactly – are you planning to leave Libya?

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

8.  Just when did U.S. intelligence say that Libyan tanks and trucks aquired the capacity of flight, such that they are being annhilated by the dozens in your no-fly zone?  Should the inability of American M1-Abrams tanks to fly not be seen as a crisis given this development?  If our vehicles could fly like Gaddafi’s apparently can, wouldn’t that help us with global warming?  And if Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks AREN’T flying, just how does this not exceed the stated U.N. mandate?

9. Why did your Secretary of State just call a clear dictator in Syria who is gunning down his own people in the streets for protesting a “reformer”?  And just why have you personally refused to give the oppressed protestors and people of Syria so much as a single nod of verbal support?  Why is your administration literally supporting a violent terrorist dictator over the oppressed Syrian people?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” this weekend, despite Assad’s atrocious human rights record and the regime’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, which has resulted in over 60 deaths in the past week alone. According to Clinton:

”There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer,” she said.

10. Will you personally apologize to George W. Bush, given that you endlessly demonized him, only to then turn around and go further than he did?  How about your criticism of Bush’s acting unconstitutionally when Bush had far more constitutional support (such as Congress’ authorization) than you did?  how about your criticism of Bush for Gitmo when you haven’t bothered to close it?  Etc.?

[From the Washington Times]: Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery – which makes no sense.

Here’s another set of questions that Obama undoubtedly will not even bother to try to answer in his speech tonight.

There’s a reason Obama’s Libya war has less American approval than any military act in the last four decades.

I know this is actually an 11th question, but it would also be nice if Obama delivered his speech under a giant blow-up of this photo and explained just WTF made him damn fool enough to be the first U.S. president in history to shake hands with Muammar Gaddafi?!?!?

Union Liberal Fascists Find Latest Crisis To Exploit In Wisconsin

The chaos of Cairo has come to America.  Brought by liberals, of course.  The motto of fascism is, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  Compare and contrast:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.”  — Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, pp. 42-43.  Copyright 2007.

And then consider:

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” — Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, November 2008.

And:

“Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it..” — Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2009.

I know what you’re thinking, liberal: “That bastard Jonah Goldberg got his hands on a time machine so he could summarize the Obama administration philosophy and label it as “fascist” before they said it back in 2007.”

There’s always a crisis with fascists.  And fascists are always saying “Carpe diem.”  And there’s also always a scapegoat.  Big Brother had Emmanuel Goldstein.  Adolf Hitler had the Jews.  Barack Obama has George W. Bush.  Heck, Soviet big government totalitarians even managed to blame seventy years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine, having executed all the other viable scapegoats.

And now the tens of thousands of mostly bussed in unions have their new crisis and their new scapegoat in newly elected Republican Governor Scott Walker:  Via Yahoo News:

Wisconsin Budget Debate Protests Prompt Nazi Signs About Governor

So much for toning down the hate-filled, partisan-inspired, Nazi-comparing that has been going on in the United States for the past decade. County, state, and anti-budget protests have erupted into 25,000-strong rallies in Wisconsin against the governor’s plans to eliminate collective bargaining while increasing pension fund and health care payments. This week a heated debate over the Wisconsin state budget is raging non-stop, complete with signs sporting the Nazi swastika and bearing slogans comparing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler have made appearances, according to CNN.

Hot Air has a collection of pictures in which liberal union activists in Wisconsin directly call Scott Walker “Hitler” and carry signs of him with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face.  Emmanuel Goldstein is back; this time he’s going by the secret identity of Scott Walker.

I’ve pointed out before in comments that I don’t care if liberals depict conservatives as Nazis and Hitler.  What I despise about them is how they attack conservatives as vile for doing things that they for the most part didn’t do (and see here and here and here and here and here) and then relish in doing again and again the very thing they demonized as being evil.  Liberals spent eight savage Bush derangement syndrome years comparing Bush to Hitler (example and example).  And then managed the chutzpah to react in hysterical outrage when a few conservatives did the same thing to Obama that they had done a billion times more to Bush.

And, just for the record, that control of the mainstream media to use propaganda to define the conservatives who DON’T want the “hope and change” that radical socialists have always offered is yet another defining element of fascism.

Well, there really IS a crisis, of course, but it’s not what lying liberal fascists say it is.  And if they want to see who the real Hitlers and the real Nazis are, they have only to stop screaming and put down their signs long enough to look in a mirror.

For example, the crisis is most certainly not that Governor Walker called out the National Guard to use as strikebreaking thugs to attack unions.  That’s a lie by lying liberals and lying liberal unions.  The reason Walker called the Guard is to staff the prisons while liberal union prison guards abandon their jobs and the public safety to go strike.  And in trying to create a crisis by denouncing that effort, apparently liberals actually WANT murderers and rapists to be allowed to escape and start murdering and raping again.

It also isn’t the tax cuts for businesses that liberals are blaming for the tax shortfall.  Unless, of course, businesses large and small alike should have all their assets seized so the money can go into the pockets of big unions and then pour into the Democrat Party machine.

The crisis is the massive unfunded union pensions that are now bankrupting one city after another, one county after another, one state after another.

You want a crisis to ogranize around and scream about?  Try that one.

Not that liberals would ever honestly face the real problems even once in their lives, or look at themselves long enough to see the Hitler in their own eyes.

Now Official: Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner A Bush-Hating Liberal

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

Arizona State Rep. Linda Lopez – a leftwing Democrat – stated:

”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”

Why would this vile woman falsely demonize our war veterans?

All you have to do is contemplate the title of an article I wrote on April 14, 2009: “Obama Administration Says Americans Should Fear Their Combat Veterans.” The article referred to an Obama DHS memo that warned that war veterans were to be considered dangerous rightwing extremists.

But that was a lie.  Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour.  In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

But let’s see.  According to the Gallup polling:

“Support for legalizing marijuana is much lower among Republicans than it is among Democrats…”

Rep. Lopez also immediately blamed the tea party for the assassination.

Paul Krugman demonstrated that all you have to do these days to get a Nobel Prize is be a far-left liberal ideologue.  His column demonizing conservatives for the Arizona shooting was published all of 2 hours after the event.  And like everything else the man has ever said, not a single word of it was anything short of propaganda (not to forget to mention the fact that Krugman has his own documented “gale of anger” problems).

For all the vicious hate and lies from the left, what we found when we actually looked at the facts is that Jared Loughner had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predated Sarah Palin; it predated the Tea Party movement; it predated the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  And to go further, we find that, in fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere in any of his writings or videos mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his über-leftwing belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

So let’s set aside the circumstantial evidence that Jared Loughner was far more leftwing than he was rightwing.  Let’s set aside the fact that he was a devotee of The Communist Manifesto.  Let’s put aside the fact that “A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as ‘left wing’ and a pot head.'” Let’s put aside the fact that Loughner never listened to conservative talk radio, surfed conservative sights, or read conservative writers like Mark Levin.  Let’s even put aside the fact that Jared Loughner loved far-left conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change”.  In the words of a friend:

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism.  And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things.  The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner never bothered with rightwing stuff.  Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner filled his sick mind with leftwing stuff.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake.  Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal?  Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

“He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo.  If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.