Why Are Blacks Fleeing Liberal Cities? The Answer Ought To Destroy The Lie That Is The Democrat Party.

If Donald Trump marshaled facts like this, he would easily smash Hillary Clinton.  But recent Republican presidential nominees have a rather piss-poor track record of marshaling facts.

But here is the path to destroying the Democratic Party in November: pointing out their actual record and the devastation left in the wake of their stupid and frankly wicked policies.

Let’s just look at blacks for a moment.  Look at what a pompous, arrogant, fact-free, utterly dishonest Obama said:

“Like the rest of America, black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office.”

And then look at the results of this fool-president’s fool-policies regarding blacks in America:

Here are some basic facts about life in black America under President Barack Obama:

1. In spite of Obama’s $275 billion in housing-market bailouts, home ownership has waned.
2. In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3% of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, the Census Bureau figure was 64.8%.
3. Black home ownership has sagged from 46.1% in 2009 to 43.3% in 2014.
4. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8%.
5. Fewer than half of young black men are working a full-time job.
6. The black workforce is decreasing, down from 58.6% in June 2007 to 52.8% in August 2012.
7. The median minority family’s income is now almost fifth lower than it was when Obama took office with a net worth of just $18,100.
8. In contrast, white median wealth has increased by 1% to $142,000.
9. In 2009, white households were 7 times richer than black households. Now, white households are 8 times richer.

Tavis Smiley – no friend whatsoever to conservatives – said this about Barack Obama when asked the following direct question by Donald Trump’s bane, Megyn Kelly:

Megyn Kelly: On the subject of race, are we better off today that seven years ago?

Tavis Smiley: I’m not sure we are and I think ultimately the president missed a moment… On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn’t been good for black folk. This is the president’s most loyal constituency that didn’t gain any ground in that period.

Blacks have lost ground ON EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC CATEGORY ACROSS THE BOARD.  A vote for a Democrat is a vote to cut your own throat, especially if you are in one of the racial classes that racist Democrats most racially demagogue.

So I came across an article that described the massive black exodus from the liberal West Coast cities mostly to the GOP-bastion southern states, and every black person ought to be told about this.  What is going on?  It’s pretty simple: if you want to live your life as a worthless loser on the dole, the Democrat Party is the “massah” for you.  Don’t you worry, jigaboos, the white man knows you are his burden and you’ll get your meager portion of gruel.  The only downside to this arrangement is that that is ALL you will ever be allowed to get for the rest of your lives; because it is literally in the interest of the Democrat Party to keep you down, to keep you poor, because otherwise you would have your own wealth and you not only won’t need the Democrat dole machine, but you would actually become a threat to them as you start voting in such a manner to protect what you earn from your hard work from government taxes; you’ll resent the government regulations that strangle your economic growth.  Massa can’t have that on his plantation.

Again, I can point to reliably leftist sources to acknowledge my basic facts.  Take the very-left leaning Atlantic title and subtitle:

Why Middle-Class Americans Can’t Afford to Live in Liberal Cities: Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

The article begins thus:

On April 2, 2014, a protester in Oakland, California, mounted a Yahoo bus, climbed to the front of the roof, and vomited onto the top of the windshield.

If not the year’s most persuasive act of dissent, it was certainly one of the most memorable demonstrations in the Bay Area, where residents have marched, blockaded, and retched in protest of San Francisco’s economic inequality and unaffordable housing. The city’s gaps—between rich and poor, between housing need and housing supply—have been duly catalogued. Even among American tech hubs, San Francisco stands alone with both the most expensive real estate and the fewest new construction permits per unit since 1990.

But San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are “within reach” for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined “within reach” as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro’s median household income.

If you line up the country’s 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income.

So this brings us to the story of the Democrat Party’s demand for “fair wages” by imposing a $15 minimum wage on every single business whether it can afford it or not.  I most recently wrote about that on April 4 of this year.  And in that article I documented what happens every single time the left pulls one of these shenanigans.  It raises costs on businesses FAR BEYOND the minimum wage, because just for starters it increases the wages of every single worker across the board (i.e., imagine you were making $2 an hour above the minimum wage workers below you at a business; are you now going to earn less than the minimum wage workers, or are you now going to get $17 an hour?  It goes up the scale, which is why the unions wanted it and fought so hard for it even though these hypocrite weasels themselves continued to pay substandard wages to the workers they hired to picket and demagogue the cities and states to impose those wages.

It’s not just true of blacks, it’s true of Hispanics as well; it’s true of poor people in general.  If you take Democrat’s demagogic policies on illegal immigration, for instance, just consider a fundamental principle of economics known as “the law of supply and demand.”  The greater the supply of something, the lower demand for that thing will be.  Realize that when you massively increase the supply of poor, unskilled labor, the value of poor, unskilled labor goes down dramatically.  Which is why wages for unskilled labor have so plummeted, thank you, liberals.

And so the same damnfools who forced your wages down are now attempting to arbitrarily force them up.  So they devastated you by gutting your earning power, and now they’re going to respond by devastating you again by sending already high costs of living into the stratosphere.

Some businesses will go out of businesses, many others will lay off quite a few of their workers and strip their operation down to the bone to stay alive.  But of the business that remain, one thing is FOR CERTAIN: they will raise their prices and pass their increased costs onto their customers.  And that is merely one of myriad ways that liberals force the cost of living to go up and up and up again and then up some more.  Your groceries will cost more and your housing will cost more; and your costs will increase significantly more than the meager boost in wages because Democrats boosted the cost of everything all the way up the chain.

No president has ever been better for the filthy rich than the most dishonest president in American history, Barack Obama.  Under his incredibly dishonest and hypocritical regime, income inequality – the gap between the richest and poorest Americans – skyrocketed.  Again, I turn to a reliably leftist source in the Huffington Post:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
04/11/2012 06:19 pm ET
Alexander Eichler

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

This news may not come as a shock if you’re one of the many Americans who lost their job during the recession and couldn’t find another that paid as well. It also might not surprise you if you’re one of the 46 million people living in poverty — a record number, as it happens — or among the millions of Americans who can get by week to week, but would be ruined by a single financial emergency.

You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.

Here’s an article that you just can’t take a quote from because every paragraph is just so devastating to Democrat stupidity.

Even Bernie Sanders is openly acknowledging that under Obama, income inequality is the worst NOT since the first decade of the 21st century under Bush, but the worst its ever been going back to 1928.

The disease of Obama is similar to the disease of alcoholism; you’re dying because you kept turning more and more to what was in fact killing you.  If you’re a Democrat – and especially if you’re a poor Democrat and most especially if you’re a racial minority Democrat – you’ve succumbed to a diseased pattern of thinking; you have been deceived into believing that what is in actual fact poisoning you and killing you is somehow helping you.

And I believe the metaphor of addiction best describes why so many groups cling to what is killing them: because the more Democrat poison they imbibe, the weaker and sicker they become, the less able to make good decisions.  To the end result that it doesn’t matter how horrible this crap is for you, you keep taking it.  You’ve lost the will and the ability to do anything else.  If you’re a drug addict, you give up your volition to your substance; if you’re a Democrat, you give up your volition to your government.  And either way you end up with your soul sucked out of you.

Democrats need you to depend on them; they need you to be flat on your back.  They will NEVER allow you to get off your back and earn your own way because if that happened you would vote those weasels out of office who want to seize what you earn and redistribute your wealth to other deceived people.  Because these are the kinds of things you have to be fool enough to believe to keep being a Democrat:

• If Democrats raise my taxes, I’ll have more money
• If Democrats bring in 12-20 million more illegal immigrants to compete for my job, my labor will be worth more
• If Democrats raise the cost of living, I’ll be better off
• If Democrats impose restrictive planning regulations, my house or apartment will cost less
• If Democrats regulate my business, I’ll have more opportunities
• The path to freedom is more and more government

Obama and Democrats have destroyed the Middle Class.  Average incomes have plummeted under Obama.

Your life sucks because you’re an Obamaholic and your substance is poisoning you body and soul.

Here is that article on blacks fleeing liberal cities in favor of GOP-dominated southern states:

Why has there been an exodus of black residents from West Coast liberal hubs?
By Aaron Renn
May 1, 2016, 5:00 AM

he Black Lives Matter movement has brought the challenges facing black America to the fore, and introduced racially conscious quality-of-life questions into the national debate. How are black residents in America’s cities faring? And how are those cities doing in meeting the aspirations of their black residents, judged especially by the ultimate barometer: whether blacks choose to move to these cities, or stay in them?

Though results vary to some extent, the broad trend is clear: West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them. Midwestern and Northeastern urban areas are attracting blacks to the extent that they are affordable or providing middle class economic opportunities. And Southern cities are now experiencing the most significant gains.

Portland is part of the fifth-whitest major metropolitan area in America. Almost 75% of the region is white, and it has the third-lowest percentage of blacks, at only 3.1%. (America as a whole is 13.2% black.) Portland proper is often portrayed as a boomtown, but the city’s shrinking black population doesn’t seem to think so. The city has lost more than 11.5% of its black residents in just four years. It’s similar to Seattle, where the central city’s black population has fallen as the overall region’s has grown.

Lower down the coast, the San Francisco Bay area has lost black residents since 2000, though recent estimates suggest that it may have halted the exodus since 2010. San Francisco proper is only 5.4% black, and the rate is falling. The Los Angeles metro area, too, has fewer black residents today than in 2000.

If these figures merely reflected black consumer choice, they wouldn’t necessarily matter; but the evidence suggests that specific public policies in these cities are to blame. Primary among them are restrictive planning regulations, common along the West Coast, that make it hard to expand the supply of housing. In a market with rising demand and static supply, prices go up.

As a rule, a household should spend no more than three times its annual income on a home. But in West Coast markets, housing-price levels far exceed that benchmark — a hardship that more severely affects blacks than whites because blacks start from further behind economically. Black median household income is only $35,481 a year, compared with $57,355 for whites. The wealth gap is even wider, with median black household wealth at only $7,133, compared with $111,146 for whites.

According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, the “median multiple” — the median home price divided by the median household income — should average about 3.0. But the median multiple is 5.1 in Portland, 5.2 in Seattle, 9.4 in San Francisco and 8.1 in Los Angeles.

“West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them.”

Even some on the left recognize how development restrictions hurt lower- and middle-income people. Liberal commentator Matt Yglesias has called housing affordability “Blue America’s greatest failing.” Yglesias and others criticize zoning policies that mandate single-family homes, or approval processes, like that in San Francisco, that prohibit as-of-right development and allow NIMBYism to keep out unwanted construction — and, by implication, unwanted people.

These commentators, however, ignore the role of environmental policy in creating these high housing prices. Portland, for example, has drawn a so-called urban-growth boundary that severely restricts land development and drives up prices inside the approved perimeter. The development-stifling effects of the California Environmental Quality Act are notorious. California also imposes some of the nation’s toughest energy regulations, putting a financial burden on lower-income (and disproportionately black) households. Nearly 1 million households in the state spend 10% or more of their income on energy bills, according to a Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser.

It’s not just liberal Western cities that are losing their black residents — many economically struggling Midwestern cities have the same problem. Detroit, Cleveland, Flint, and Youngstown all have declining black populations.

The greatest demographic transition is taking place in Chicago. A black population loss of 177,000 accounted for the lion’s share of the city’s total shrinkage during the 2000s. Another 53,000 blacks have fled the city since 2010. In fact, the entire metro Chicago area lost nearly 23,000 blacks in aggregate, the biggest decline in the United States.

But in northern cities with more robust middle-class economies, black populations are expanding. Since 2010, for example, metro Indianapolis added more than 19,000 blacks (6.9% growth), Columbus more than 25,000 (9%), and Boston nearly 40,000 (10.2%). New York’s and Philadelphia’s black population growth rates are low but positive, in line with slow overall regional growth.

The somewhat unlikely champion for northern black population growth is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Since 2010, the black population in the city has grown by 15,000 people, or 23%. The region added 30,400 black residents, growing by 12.1%.

Like Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis is considered a liberal stronghold. But, unlike those West Coast cities, it has cultivated a development environment that keeps housing affordable, with a home-price median multiple of only 3.2.

Similarly, in Columbus (with a median multiple of 2.9) and Indianapolis (also 2.9), black families can afford the American dream. (Boston, with its high housings costs, is an outlier.)

Where else are black Americans moving? One destination dominates: the South. A century ago, blacks were leaving the South to go north and west; today, they are reversing that journey, in what the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel DiSalvo dubbed “The Great Remigration.” DiSalvo found that black Americans now choose the South in pursuit of jobs, lower costs and taxes, better public services (notably, schools) and sunny weather for retirement.

Historically, Southern blacks lived in rural areas. A large rural black population remains in the South today, often living in the same types of conditions as rural whites, which is to say, under significant economic strain. But the new black migrants to the South are increasingly flocking to the same metro areas that white people are — especially Atlanta, the new cultural and economic capital of black America, with a black population of nearly 2 million. The Atlanta metro area, one-third black, continues to add more black residents (150,000 since 2010) than any other region.

In Texas, Dallas has drawn 110,000 black residents (11.3% growth) and Houston just under 100,000 (9.2%) since 2010. Miami, with its powerful Latino presence that includes Afro-Latinos, also added about 100,000 blacks (8.3%). Today, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are all home to more than 1 million black residents.

Many smaller southern cities — including Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, and Nashville — are seeing robust black population growth as well.

Not surprisingly, these southern cities are extremely affordable. A combination of pro-business policies combined with a development regime that permits housing supply to expand as needed has proved a winner. (Among these southern cities, only Miami, with its massive influx of Latin American wealth, is rated as unaffordable, with a median multiple of 5.6.)

When it comes to how state and local policies affect black residents’ choices about where to live, cities with the West Coast model of liberalism are the worst performing.

These results should be troubling to progressives touting West Coast planning, economic, and energy policies as models for the nation. If wealthy cities like San Francisco and Portland — where progressives have near-total political control — can’t produce positive outcomes for working-class and middle-class blacks, why should we expect their approach to succeed anywhere else?

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. This piece has been adapted from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Who would have guessed that pro-business policies, zoning laws that prefer people over leftist environmentalist whining, fewer regulations, and the abandonment of leftist (Stalinist) top-down planning would win?  Other than anyone who is NOT A DAMN FOOL???

Democrats guarantee that they will make black people poorer and more dependent.  And all Democrats have is demagoguery and lies piled on top of more demagoguery and more lies.  But I’ll just end by quoting Forrest Gump:

Okay, that’s good but it doesn’t quite go far enough to describe why we’re where we’re at today.  So let me instead end with John Wayne:

.

Barack Obama Is Bringing Americans Together – As ROOMMATES Because Rent In His Regime Is Too Expensive For People To Live Alone Anymore

Barack Obama is bringing America together.

No, he’s not doing it the way he deceitfully promised when he said he would transcend the political divide and that this wasn’t red states and blue states but the United States.  Obama lied like your floor rug on that.  He’s the most polarizing president in American history because he demonizes his opposition like no American president EVER did.  According to Obama, Republicans are people who crave dirty air and dirty water and celebrate every time a child is born with autism or Downs Syndrome.  And of course we should break America up into racial groups and those groups should “punish their enemies.”  No, rather, Obama is bringing Americans together in a very literal way: because Americans can no longer afford to live alone anymore.

This year about 30% of adults, 69.2 million people, are living in doubled-up households, compared with 27.7%, or 61.7 million, in 2007, according to a September report on income, poverty and health insurance from the Census Bureau.

The completely failed Obama presidency has done NOTHING to solve the housing mortgage crisis that actually caused the 2008 collapse.  If anything his failed policies have made that crisis WORSE and certainly stalled any hope that a free market be allowed to self-correct.

Maybe that was Obama’s plan: because he’s brought us together in a unique way.  Because of his failed presidency, more Americans than ever before are forced to live with a roommate because they can’t afford to pay “ObamaRent.”

Rents Keep Rising, Even as Housing Prices Fall
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: February 24, 2012

The housing market remains a potent drag on the economy as home prices continue to slip, foreclosed homes fill some neighborhoods and millions of construction workers scramble for jobs.

But one group is sitting pretty: landlords.

Unlike home prices, rents have been rising, up 2.4 percent in January from a year earlier, according to recent data, not adjusted for inflation, released by the Labor Department.

With few rental buildings erected over the last few years, available units are going fast. Nationwide, the apartment vacancy rate is down to 5.2 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade, according to the research firm Reis Inc.

[…]

“We are more of a renter nation than we have been for a while,” said Christopher J. Mayer, a professor of real estate at the Columbia University Business School.

It’s an interesting state of affairs: home values and prices are plunging because nobody can afford one or will take the risk of buying a home in this economically dying country.  But people – including poor people – have to live somewhere (at least until cardboard boxes and park benches start looking like better prospects): so rents are skyrocketing.

Obama has “fundamentally transformed” America into a nation of renters.  And more Americans are now forced to live with roommates than ever before:

Home Invasion! How Old Is Too Old for Roommates?
With apartments scarce, even settled, married couples are opening up their homes to strange bedfellows.
By Rachel R. White 5/09 10:55am

When Michelle, a writer working on a first novel, tells people her husband, Daniel, is a hedge fund manager, they often remark, “Oh, honey, you did well.” And she did. The recently married pair live in a large dazzling loft in Dumbo. They currently rent, though they’ve started looking at places to buy and are getting serious about a second home upstate.

But Michelle and Daniel’s living situation was dealt a serious blow by the economy when Hannah, Michelle’s friend from Columbia, found herself without a job or home. The couple gave her a place to crash, and Daniel found he had to navigate a new morning routine. He was careful to get dressed in the bedroom before venturing out to make coffee, and he learned to keep especially quiet as he pored over the Wall Street Journal and the Times before work, so as not to wake Hannah, dozing on the guest bed in the corner.

Thanks to stagnant employment rates and rising rent prices, such situations appear to be increasingly common. Browsing Craigslist for single-room listings that include the phrase “we are a couple” brings up 131 posts from the week of April 30–May 7 alone. Stephanie Diamond, founder of The Listings Project, an email resource for renters in New York City, says she’s also seen a rise in couples seeking roommates. So has Jonathan Miller, the president and CEO of Miller Samuel Inc., a real estate consulting firm. “More people are sharing rents—doubling up—whether with family or roommates,” he said.

Remember the new book Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone by NYU sociology professor Eric Klinenberg? Forget it. Mr. Miller calls the whole idea “bizarre,” pointing out that housing formation has lately fallen—which means that more people are actually living together.

Or – if you’re a college graduate who can’t find a job in Obama’s God damn America – live with your parents in their basement.  That’s what Obama meant when he said “hope and change,” you just didn’t read the fine print:

Survey: 85% of New College Grads Move Back in with Mom and Dad
By Erica Ho | @ericamho | May 10, 2011

The kids are coming home to roost.

Surprise, surprise: Thanks to a high unemployment rate for new grads, many of those with diplomas fresh off the press are making a return to Mom and Dad’s place. In fact, according to a poll conducted by consulting firm Twentysomething Inc., some 85% of graduates will soon remember what Mom’s cooking tastes like.

Times are undeniably tough. Reports have placed the unemployment rate for the under-25 group as high as 54%. Many of these unemployed graduates are choosing to go into higher education in an attempt to wait out the job market, while others are going anywhere — and doing anything — for work. Meanwhile, moving back home helps with expenses and paying off student loans.

The outlook isn’t sunshine and roses: Rick Raymond, of the College Parents of America, notes, “Graduates are not the first to be hired when the job markets begins to improve. We’re seeing shocking numbers of people with undergraduates degrees who can’t get work.”

Guess moving back home isn’t limited to philosophy majors anymore.

By the way, absolutely nothing has changed in the last year: an article that came out May 15, 2012 says the figure is STILL 85%:

Boomerang kids: 85% of college graduates must move back home
By Jessica Dickler | CNNMoney.com – May 15, 2012

Editor’s note: Politifactrecently called into question a survey cited in the 2010 CNNMoney article below. The survey, conducted by a company called Twentysomething Inc., found that 85% of college seniors planned to move back home with their parents after graduation. At the time, CNNMoney interviewed the head of Twentysomething, which today is no longer in business. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in December 2011 found that 53% of 18- to 24-year-olds are living with their parents or moved back with them temporarily during the past few years.

Getting a degree used to be a stepping stone to limitless career opportunities. Now it’s more of a hiatus from living under your parents’ roof.

Stubbornly high unemployment — nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 — has made finding a job nearly impossible. And without a job, there’s nowhere for these young adults to go but back to their old bedrooms, curfews and chore charts. Meet the boomerangers.

“This recession has hit young adults particularly hard,” according to Rich Morin, senior editor at the Pew Research Center in DC.

So hard that a whopping 85% of college seniors planned to move back home with their parents after graduation last May, according to a poll by Twentysomething Inc., a marketing and research firm based in Philadelphia. That rate has steadily risen from 67% in 2006.

“It’s peaking at levels we have not seen before,” said David Morrison, managing director and founder of Twentysomething.

Mallory Jaroski, 22 graduated from Penn State University in May but has been living at home with her mother while looking for a job in press relations. “It’s not bad living with my mom, but I feel like a little kid. I have a little bed, a little room,” she says.

Jaroski thought she would stay for summer. But like many others, she’s found her stay becoming significantly longer.

College Students voted for Obama in huge numbers.  And now they’re getting what they voted for: the most wicked and wickedly failing president in American history.

Now a lot more Americans are living the “college lifestyle” thanks to Obama:

This year about 30% of adults, 69.2 million people, are living in doubled-up households, compared with 27.7%, or 61.7 million, in 2007, according to a September report on income, poverty and health insurance from the Census Bureau.

Late last year I wrote, “Housing Under Obama Worst Since Great Depression – With Poor And Minorities Most Screwed By ‘Hope And Change’.”  Last year i wrote, “Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It.”  It hasn’t got any better since.

As a result of Obama’s demonic demagogic class warfare policies that punish workers by forcing employers to cut their workforces, black people have been set back DECADES. And women are losing ground. Obama is HURTING the poor while falsely and cynically claiming to be helping them.  Here are four headlines about the very base that makes up the Obama constituency that I wrote about last year:

After decades of hard-fought progress, black economic gains were reversed in Great Recession

Hispanics’ Unemployment Rate Soars

Women Losing Ground as Jobs Crisis Rages

U.S. Youth Unemployment At Arab Spring Levels

And let me add one about the young people that Obama’s damn-fool policies have failed JUST AS CONSERVATIVES TOLD ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN THEY WOULD:

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

I can CONTINUE to document that the “Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor.”  I can continue to document that thanks to Obama “Inflation Is Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet.”

The ONLY reason the unemployment rate is going down is because three people continue to abandon any chance of ever getting a job for every ONE person who is able to actually get a job.

It is a fact that “Real Unemployment Is Skyrocketing With A Record 88 Million Working-Age Americans Out Of Labor Force In Obama’s God Damn America.”

It is a FACT that the “Rapidly Worsening Labor Participation Rate Is Now Lowest In More Than THIRTY YEARS Under Obama’s Failed Regime. PLEASE LOOK AT HISTORY!!!.”

So let me simply ask: “Where Are The Jobs, Obama You Liar???“

Housing Under Obama Worst Since Great Depression – With Poor And Minorities Most Screwed By ‘Hope And Change’

Obama rammed his “stimulus” through Congress on lies and false promises.

Obama said that virtually all economists were on his side.  That was a flat-out lie.  Obama made promises based on his lies that are now documented to have been completely false.

And this truly evil man who represents God damn America is trying to do the same thing all over again.  He’s singing the same tune and making the same lying promises all over again.

The saddest thing about Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the American economy and way of life is that the people Obama cynically and deceitfully claimed he was defending are in fact the ones who are being the most truly screwed by Obama’s policies.

And it just never ends: Obama crushes and oppresses the poor and the helpless – blames the Republicans for the failures that are completely his fault and which were taking place well before Republicans had any power to fight Obama’s demonic policies at all – and then deceitfully runs against Republicans on a campaign that is pure demagoguery.  As just one example, Obama is out blaming Republicans for stopping his jobs bill – which is just the same damn failed stimulus by a different name.  But it is DEMOCRATS who are blocking Obama’s jobs bill and Republicans who want it to come up for a vote.  And Obama is the worst kind of liar for falsely claiming otherwise.

And here we go again.  THE most evil president in American history is destroying America.  And it’s hard to imagine how Obama is going to blame his double-dip recession (DEPRESSION) that entirely happened on HIS WATCH on somebody else.  God damn America is going to go down hard until we rid ourselves of this wicked man.

By the way: This article was written by a fool, for what it’s worth. The third paragraph in the article claims the reason for this terrible state of affairs is “reduced government involvement.” But consider the final sentence in this New York Times article:

“Fannie, Freddie and F.H.A. buy or insure about 97 percent of residential mortgages.”

Can you understand how truly full of stupid it is to argue that the government hasn’t been “involved enough” with this wretched fiasco when in fact they control 97 percent of the hell they inflicted on us with their hellish policies?!?!?  Ninety-seven percent wasn’t enough government control, you jackass?!?!?  What, ninety-nine percent would have been even better?  One hundred percent government takeover would have fixed our inadequately socialized system for sure?!?!?

Oct 6, 6:07 PM EDT
Census: Housing bust worst since Great Depression
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The American dream of homeownership has felt its biggest drop since the Great Depression, according to new 2010 census figures released Thursday.

The analysis by the Census Bureau found the homeownership rate fell to 65.1 percent last year. While that level remains the second highest decennial rate, analysts say the U.S. may never return to its mid-decade housing boom peak in which nearly 70 percent of occupied households were owned by their residents.

The reason: a longer-term economic reality of tighter credit, prolonged job losses and reduced government involvement.

Unemployed young adults are least likely to own, delaying first-time home purchases to live with Mom and Dad. Middle-aged adults 35-64, mostly homeowners who were hit with mortgage foreclosures or bankruptcy after the housing bust in 2006, are at their lowest levels of ownership in decades.

Measured by race, the homeownership gap between whites and blacks is now at its widest since 1960, wiping out more than 40 years of gains.

“The changes now taking place are mind-boggling: the housing market has completely crashed and attitudes toward housing are shifting from owning to renting,” said Patrick Newport, economist with IHS Global Insight. “While 10 years ago owning a home was the American Dream, I’m not sure a lot of people still think that way.”

He noted the now-diminished roles of mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which for decades at the urging of government helped enable loans to borrowers with poor credit, many of them minorities. In a shift, the Obama administration earlier this year said it would move from a longtime government focus on promoting homeownership for all and instead steer people with low incomes toward renting where appropriate.

Congress has been considering whether to eliminate the federal tax deduction for home-mortgage interest, a popular incentive to home-buying that’s been in place since the early 20th century.

Given depressed housing values that could continue for at least another four to five years, it now makes more sense in most cases to rent than own, Newport said.

Nationwide, the homeownership rate fell to 65.1 percent – or 76 million occupied housing units that were owned by their residents – from 66.2 percent in 2000. That drop-off of 1.1 percentage points is the largest since 1940, when homeownership plummeted 4.2 percentage points during the Great Depression to a low of 43.6 percent.

Since 1940, the number of Americans owning homes had steadily increased in each decennial census due to a mostly booming economy, favorable tax laws and easier financing. The one exception had been 1980-1990, when ownership remained unchanged at 64.2 percent.

Broken down by state, 41 states saw declines in home ownership since 2000, many of them in the South and West where foreclosures were more common. They were led by South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina. On the other end of the scale, states with higher shares of vacation homes owned by affluent baby boomers saw small increases in ownership, including New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont.

The U.S. housing crisis is far worse than the experience in most Western industrialized nations, which, unlike the U.S., did not foster markets of subprime lending to promote homeownership. The U.S. continues to maintain a relatively high rate of homeownership, surpassed only by countries such as Spain, Ireland, Australia and England.

“In the U.S., there’s still a strong cultural pull toward homeownership, because in normal times it’s always been seen as a way to build net worth and equity,” said Dan McCue, research manager at Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. But with many former homeowners now renting, he said, clearly that dynamic has changed: “It puts a renewed focus on rentals, and on ways to create new opportunities for low-income households to build their wealth.”

Blacks, who as a whole have lower income and higher unemployment than other groups, were particularly set back by the housing bust. Their homeownership rate fell from 46.3 percent in 2000 to 44.3 percent; among whites, the rate dipped slightly from 72.4 percent to 72.2 percent. Whites are now on average 1.63 times more likely than blacks to own a home, the widest gap since 1960.

Among all minorities, homeownership in the U.S. rose slightly over the past decade to 48 percent from 47.4 percent, boosted by more home buying among the younger and larger Hispanic population. Hispanic homeownership increased from 45.7 percent to 47.3 percent.

In all, nearly 44 percent of all renters in the U.S. are minorities, compared with only 22 percent of homeowners. Broken down by state, minorities make up more than half of all renters in 10 states and the District of Columbia, up from 6 in 2000 – with the new states being New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico.

“There is no doubt that a large part of the white-minority economic divide is reflected in the disproportionate minority representation among the nation’s renters,” said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings Institution, who analyzed the race data. “The recent financial crises, including large numbers of subprime loans to African Americans, has dramatically widened the white-black homeownership disparity.”

Other census findings:

-Homeownership rates decreased in each region of the country over the last decade. Midwesterners were most likely to own a house, at 69.2 percent, followed by Southerners at 66.7 percent, Northeasterners at 62.2 percent and Westerners at 60.5 percent.

-For the fourth census in a row, West Virginia had the highest homeownership rate, at 73.4 percent. The District of Columbia, with its high share of single twenty- and thirty-somethings who rent, had the lowest at 42 percent.

-While homeowners were the majority in most of the nation’s metropolitan areas, they were outnumbered by renters in many of the nation’s largest cities. They included New York City, where renters made up 69 percent of households, Los Angeles at 61.8 percent, Chicago at 55.1 percent and Houston at 54.6 percent.

By age, the highest ownership rate nationwide is for those 65 and older, about 77.5 percent. Older Americans are more likely to own their homes debt-free and thus be less exposed to the foreclosure crisis. Still, their homeownership rate is down slightly from a 2000 peak of 78.1 percent.

Among adults 34 and younger, homeownership was nearly 40 percent, the highest since the mid-1990s. For adults in the 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 age groups, homeownership rates fell to their lowest since at least 1980.

Peter Francese, founder of American Demographics magazine who is now analyst for the MetLife Mature Market Institute, believes Americans aren’t completely giving up on homeownership. He noted millions of young adults are delaying home-buying while they temporarily double-up with their parents, representing pent-up demand for houses that will surface once the job market begins to recover.

—

Online:

http://www.census.gov

If Democrats actually give one flying damn about the poor or about minorities, it is long past time that they threw this failure out on his dumbo ears.

I call them “DemonCrats,” for “Demonic Bureaucrats.”  These people impose their Marxist-fascist government planned economy, and then they simply cannot understand why it keeps failing over and over and over again.

What happens again and again?  The Demonic Bureaucrats impose stupid and immoral policies on the private sector to force them to do incredibly harmful and counterproductive things such as make home loans to people who cannot possibly afford them.  And then when the private sector figures out a way to somehow make money on the latest failed government takeover, the DemonCrats blame the private sector.  Thus Democrats force the banks to make stupid loans to people who could not pay those loans back, forcing the banks to pursue dangerous policies in pursuit of the profits they exist to pursue.  And then when everything goes to hell, the same Democrats who set up the entire disaster and caused the whole mess invariably point their fingers at the people they forced into an impossible situation to begin with.

And Democrats will continue to do this until the American people either wise up and drive them out of power, or until America collapses.  Whichever comes first.

Communist Party USA Says ‘Thanks, Comrade Obama!’

Lest we ever forget who Obama truly is, and who the people who root for him truly are:

“Obama got the ball rolling,” the communists joyfully told us.

Mind you, it turned out to be a WRECKING BALL.

This becomes another opportunity to point out the same thing I’ve pointed out before.  When Karl Marx stated the central thesis of communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his means,” I pointed out that he would make a hell of a great Democrat today.

I’m posting the article just to point out THAT THIS SAME ARTICLE COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A DEMOCRAT OR A MAINSTREAM MEDIA ‘JOURNALIST’.  Only it was written by the same exact thing going by a different label: a communist.

Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling

In some ways last night’s State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need.
 
With the scent of Massachusetts still in the air, the president reasserted his reform agenda and took the fight to the party of obstruction. In polite, nuanced but forceful terms, he chastised the Republican Party.
 
In powerful oratory, he challenged some of the main ideological talking points of right-wing extremism, reminded everyone that he inherited record deficits and an unprecedented economic mess, and defended the stimulus bill and other recovery measures, including, and unfortunately the unconditional bank bailouts.
 
One of the high points of the evening was when the president called out the right-wing (and maybe worse) dominated Supreme Court whose members were sitting directly in front of him for their recent decision saying it’s OK for corporations to throw money into the election process.
 
One of the low points was his defense of the escalation of troops in Afghanistan and his threatening tone toward Iran and other “adversaries.”
 
Overall, I’d say that if the leaders of the “Party of No” came into the legislative chamber last night with wind in their sails, they left with their sails trimmed and a dour look on their faces. The evening for them turned out to be a “bummer.”
 
They had hoped to hear President Obama repeat what President Clinton said in his State of the Union address in 1994: “The era of big government is over.” But the president disappointed them.
 
While the broad people’s coalition that elected him will not, I’m sure, be entirely happy with the president’s speech, all signs are that his fighting tone (“I will not quit”), his focus on the economy, his defense of democratic rights (civil, labor, women, immigrant, gay and lesbian), his insistence on financial reform, and his policy initiatives outlined in the speech, including a health care bill, will reenergize this coalition, which, as of late, has been understandably dismayed by the pace and depth of change.
 
But this new energy will quickly dissipate if the White House and congressional Democrats go back to ignoring the rumbling from below and bending over backwards to satisfy Republicans and conservatives in their own party.
 
Working people expect them to draw a line in the sand, show more partisanship, push the legislative process, and tenaciously fight for the American people. If the Republicans obstruct and filibuster so be it. At least everybody will know who is blocking legislative measures that would ease the economic crisis when they go to the polls this fall.
 
But as good as many parts of Obama’s speech were, it didn’t fully rise in substantive terms to the challenges of our times and this era. The president could have knocked the ball out of the ballpark, but he settled for less. He had a chance to make the case for deep-going political, economic and social reform, including radical reform, but he came up short of that.
 
His speech didn’t have the programmatic depth that is objectively necessary at this moment. It took us an important step closer to solving the awful economic mess and relieving the human toll that comes with it, but only a step.
 
Politics is an art as well as a science. And part of that art includes knowing when to advance and when to retreat. Last night President Obama didn’t retreat, but he didn’t advance the people’s agenda to the degree that was possible and necessary. He roused the nation, but he didn’t hit the high note.
 
We would probably have to go back to Franklin Roosevelt to find a president who has the trust of our nation’s multi-racial, multi-national, male-female, young and old working class as President Obama does.
 
But the people’s trust has to be constantly renewed – and on the basis of practical performance, on the basis of systematically fighting for the crying needs of the American people. This president can be a transformative leader (he has that potential in my view), but only if he embraces and fights for a transformative agenda.
 
That agenda in a full-blown sense has yet to be articulated by him. If President Obama and the Democrats want to hail the private sector as the engine of growth, I wouldn’t quibble too much as long as they recognize that the private sector at this moment (big or small business) isn’t generating jobs and probably won’t for a long time. In these circumstances, only direct and indirect government intervention in the form of a massive public works jobs program, infrastructure repair and renewal, aid for state and local governments, and special measures for the hardest hit communities, and especially communities of racial minorities and immigrants, stands a chance of lowering unemployment in any kind of meaningful way.
 
In other words, the economy still has to be re-inflated and restructured along democratic, sustainable, nonmilitary, and worker-friendly lines, but the likelihood of the private sector doing that is zero. To a degree, the president is moving in this direction, but the pace and nature of the economic reforms that he prescribes is far too limited for the scope and depth of this crisis.
 
One of the serious missteps that he made last night was his call for a freeze on domestic discretionary spending, beginning in 2011. Hopefully the freeze is only a political calculation to ward off the Republican wolves who accuse him of being a “spend and tax” liberal. But in any case, it comes with a price insofar as it entrenches in the public mind that deficit spending is inherently bad and that our budgetary woes are caused by “handouts” to the poor and vulnerable, especially people of color and immigrants – not to mention aid to developing countries.
 
This is an unmitigated falsehood that ruptures our sense of social solidarity, of connectedness to every other human being. The truth of the matter is that the current budget deficit, as the president said, began during the Bush years as a result of two wars of aggression, mammoth tax breaks to the top income tier, and a bulging military budget.
 
Fiscal discipline and balanced budgeting are not an article of faith that has to be adhered to no matter what the circumstances. If that were the case, the U.S. and world economy could easily have tumbled into a full-blown depression last year. Capitalism isn’t a self-correcting system. Market failure and crisis are as much a reality as sustained economic growth. Vicious and reinforcing contractions of the economy can easily leave an economy stagnating at a far from optimum level or in complete ruin unless they are counteracted by aggressive government action and spending measures. The stimulus and anti-crisis measures of the Obama administration acted as a tourniquet; it stopped the hemorrhaging.
 
But it didn’t heal the wound.
 
If the president looks to the Depression years he will see more than one Roosevelt. There was the Roosevelt of 1934-1936 and the Roosevelt of 1937. The 1934-1936 Roosevelt had hit a wall as far as his reform efforts were concerned and he was faced with a moment of decision as to how to proceed – should he stay the course, retreat, or enlarge his vision. He chose the latter and thus the New Deal.
 
Or Obama could look to the 1937 incarnation of Roosevelt who, when seeing a surge of economic activity, decided to cut back on spending and balance the budget, which, as it turned out, was exactly the wrong medicine for an economy in its early stages of recovery.
 
From President Obama’s speech it seems like he hasn’t definitively decided which Roosevelt he will emulate, although I believe he leans toward the 1934-1936 Roosevelt. Which is what we need. Admittedly a bold anti-right, anti-corporate course of action won’t be easy. The opponents are many and powerful. Resist they will.
 
Thus to level and tilt the playing field in a progressive/radical direction, the president has to be joined, prodded, and where necessary differed with by the labor-led coalition that elected him. So far it hasn’t carried its share of the load; it is not even strong and united enough to enact even the program that the president outlined last night – let alone win more fundamental reforms. Too many of us have been content to watch, offer opinions, criticize, express our frustrations, and feel disappointed in the president.
 
But aren’t we part of the problem too, indeed a big part? An era of reform – and especially radical reforms – combines popular, sustained, and united action from below with new political openings from above. Both are necessary.
 
Last night the president got the ball rolling, but he didn’t roll it far enough or always in the right direction. So now it’s our turn to get a lot more players involved, roll the ball further and roll in the direction of economic security, equality, democracy and peace.

The only real difference between Democrats and communists is that communists are at least honest about the fact that they are communists.

I recall posting a story in which the former communist newspaper Pravda – having come through the collapse of their country caused BY communism – wrote a piece blasting Obama’s America for heading down the same disastrous path.  That was in 2009.

And here we are, two years later, and U.S. borrowing just surpassed 100% of our entire GDP, and manufacturers are doing anything BUT manufacture, which is balanced by the fact that the services industry is similarly tanking, layoffs are at a 16-month high, housing is now WORSE THAN the Great Depression and consumers are terrified to buy anything.  And we’re pretty much screwed with Obama as our tyrant emperor.

And of course the writers of Pravda saw it coming because they’d had to live through the time when their communists were sending their country to hell.

YES WE CAN (implode just like the U.S.S.R.)!!!

U.S. Housing Is Now WORSE Than Great Depression (Thanks Barry Hussein!)

Here’s Obama’s constant and constantly false narrative.  Things are bad, but Barry Hussein has made then better.

I mean, thank God we don’t have that miserable 7.6% unemployment Bush left office with; due to Obama’s messianic leadership, unemployment has improved to 9.1%.

Unemployment with Obama’s “stimulus” boondoggle is actually HIGHER than the Obama White House said it would be WITHOUT the stimulus – and on top of the fact that his stimulus actually HURT employment, we still have to pay back that $3.27 TRILLION in debt that Obama saddled America with.

Obama constantly boasted about the “shovel-ready jobs” he created.  He is a liar by his own acknowledgment now.  The other day he heard someone bitterly complain about all the terrible regulations he created and how they stopped any meaningful recovery dead in its tracks [note: remember how Democrats deceitfully blamed all the problems on Republicans’ DEREGULATING], and Obama responded with a joke, dismissively saying, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”

That’s RIGHT, you lying weasel!!!  And Republicans were only telling you this three years ago while you lied and lied and then lied some more every single day.

But that aint nothin’ compared to the havoc Obama has wreaked with his “wreckovery.”

Just yesterday I explained at length how Democrats and Obama were FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE for our housing crisis than Bush or the Republicans.

In brief, it was DEMOCRATS who created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It was DEMOCRATS who forced banks to make risky loans under the guise of opening up home ownership to those who could not qualify for traditional (i.e. safe and sane) mortgages.  It was DEMOCRATS who pushed Fannie and Freddie into the incredible risky subprime loan market.  It was DEMOCRATS who were at the very epicenter of subprime loans to even BEGIN WITH.  It was DEMOCRATS who allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bundle huge blocks of these subprime loans together such that investors had no possible means of knowing how safe these mortgage backed securities (that ONLY Fannie and Freddie could sell) were and how much bad debt was in them.  It was DEMOCRATS who fiercely resisted all Republican efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie.  It was DEMOCRATS who falsely assured the American people that Fannie and Freddie were safe while Republicans correctly predicted these massive behemoths would lead us into a disaster.  It was DEMOCRATS who turned Fannie and Freddie into such a massive behemoth that it controlled more than half of the entire mortgage industry (to big to fail alert).  It was DEMOCRATS at the helm of Fannie and Freddie who doctored financial reports and benefited personally to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus bonuses and fees.  And it was DEMOCRATS like Barack Obama who received more campaign money in a shorter period of time from Fannie and Freddie (not to mention corrupt crony capitalist private firms like Lehman Bros.) than ANYONE.  And ALL the top scumbags who benefitted personally from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money were ALL DEMOCRATS.

Fannie and Freddie went down – just like Republicans said would happen and just like Democrats promised us would NOT happen – and then the very people who created the mess and benefited from the mess turned around and demonized the people who tried to prevent the mess.

It was DEMOCRATS who created the housing crisis.  And it is under DEMOCRAT leadership that this crisis is so bad that it is even WORSE than the Great Depression:

US Housing Crisis Is Now Worse Than Great Depression
Published: Tuesday, 14 Jun 2011 | 12:04 PM ET
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer

It’s official: The housing crisis that began in 2006 and has recently entered a double dip is now worse than the Great Depression.

Prices have fallen some 33 percent since the market began its collapse, greater than the 31 percent fall that began in the late 1920s and culminated in the early 1930s, according to Case-Shiller data.

The news comes as the Federal Reserve considers whether the economy has regained enough strength to stand on its own and as unemployment remains at a still-elevated 9.1 percent, throwing into question whether the recovery is real.

“The sharp fall in house prices in the first quarter provided further confirmation that this housing crash has been larger and faster than the one during the Great Depression,” Paul Dales, senior economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in research for clients.

According to Case-Shiller, which provides the most closely followed housing industry data, prices dropped 1.9 percent in the first quarter, a move that the firm interpreted as a clear double dip in prices.

Moreover, Dales said prices likely have not completed their downturn.

“The only comfort is that the latest monthly data show that towards the end of the first quarter prices started to fall at a more modest rate,” he said. “Nonetheless, prices are likely to fall by a further 3 percent this year, resulting in a 5 percent drop over the year as a whole.”

Prices continue to tumble despite affordability, which by most conventional metrics is near historic highs.

The rate for a 30-year conventional mortgage is around 4.5 percent, just above the historic low of 4.2 percent in October 2010. The ratio measuring mortgage costs to renting is 7 percent below its norm, while the price-to-income ratio is 23 percent below its average, Dale said.

Yet other factors are constraining the market.

After the fallout from the subprime debacle, in which millions lost their homes when they defaulted on loans they could not afford, banks changed underwriting standards.

More than four in every five mortgages now require a down payment of 20 percent, and credit history standards have tightened. At the same time, foreclosures continue at a brisk pace, pushing more supply onto the market and pressuring prices downward.

Then there is the issue of underwater homeowners—those who owe more than their house is worth—representing another 23 percent of homeowners who cannot leave or are in danger of mortgage default.

Indeed, the foreclosure problem is unlikely to get any better with 4.5 million households either three payments late or in foreclosure proceedings. The historical average is 1 million, according to Dales’ research.

The only bright spot Dales found, aside from the slowing in price drop in March, was some isolated strength in states such as Nevada, Michigan, South Dakota, Alaska and Iowa.

The thing that was nearly COMPLETELY created by Democrats in the first place is now worse than at ANY time in the Bush administration, and in fact so bad under Obama’s watch that it is actually worse than it was even in the Great Depression.

But Obama has made it better.

You have got to be absolutely demonic to believe that.

Obama has failed.  He has utterly and completely failed.  He is the embodiement of God damn America, and God will continue to damn America until this wicked fool is removed from the White House.

US Is in Even Worse Shape Financially Than Greece. And Why Is That In The Age Of Obama???

Thanks for “fundamentally transforming” our economy, Barry Hussein!

We’re constantly being told that Obama has done a great deal to make our economy stronger.  Because who wouldn’t rather have 9.1% unemployment than that 7.6% that Obama started out with.

The thing that most killed the US economy in 2008 was the sheer weight of godawful subprime mortgages that Democrats imposed on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other mortgage lenders in order to create more “fairness” and allow everyone (especially racial minorities) to have “the right” to own a home whether they could actually afford to do so or not.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “Government Sponsored Enterprises,” all the investors knew.  So even as Fannie and Freddie began bundling together thousands of riskier and ever riskier mortgages into giant mortgage backed securities to advance Democrat-enacted policies, large investment houses continued to gobble them up.  After all, this was an arm of the United States Government – and the United States Government ALWAYS pays its debts.

Like all scams, it worked for a while.  But as soon as there was a correction in the dramatically overvalued housing market, the whole boondoggle began to implode.  And since Fannie and Freddie had bundled all kinds of bad mortgages in with the good ones, there was absolutely no way for anyone to know how much risk was contained in any of these giant investment vehicles all these giant private banking houses found themselves holding.

And suddenly the perception that Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “safe investments” turned into a “misperception.”  And the fecal matter began to hit the rotary oscillator bigtime.

Fannie and Freddie were the first to collapse.  The big private players who had played ball with them shortly followed.

President George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie and Freddie when there was actually a chance to do something.  Go back to what the New York Times stated in 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10—  The Bush  administration today recommended the most significant  regulatory  overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings  and loan  crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new   agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume   supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored   companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending   industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with   Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the   companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.   And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks   of their ballooning portfolios.

Republicans were demonized for “deregulation” by the dishonest Democrat Party machine.  But they TRIED to regulate what needed to be regulated.  Democrats stopped them.

Many Republicans like John McCain literally begged Democrats to do something before it was too late.  But Democrats threatened to filibuster any bill that in any way prevented Fannie and Freddie from continuing the reckless economy-killing policies.  Conservative economists such as Peter Wallison had been predicting the Fannie and Freddie boondoggles would cause an economic collapse since at least 1999.  Wallison had warned back then:

 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.”

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.

That same New York Times article that said President Bush was trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ended with this demonstration of Democrats standing against necessary reform:

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

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

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

Why was Barney Frank deceitfully claiming that Fannie and Freddie weren’t facing “any kind of financial crisis”?  BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE RIGHTLY WARNING THAT THEY WERE.

Only about a month before the whole Fannie and Freddie boondoggles Democrats had fiercely protected collapsed – taking the entire US economy with it – Democrat Barney Frank was on the record saying THIS:

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.”

So we blew up nearly COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF DEMOCRAT POLICIES.  But Democrats along with an ideological mainstream media that is the worse since Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi Minister of Propaganda were ready.  They ran on a platform that it happened while Bush was president, and that therefore Bush was entirely responsible for the thing he tried over and over again to fix while Democrats used their power to block those efforts.

Let me just say “Franklin Raines.”  Raines as Fannie CEO presided over Enron-style accounting policies and got $90 million in his account because of those corrupt policies.  But Raines was the first BLACK CEO of Fannie Mae.  And even though he was a Democrat and a Clinton guy, President Bush lacked the courage to push the “first black Fannie Mae CEO” out.  Which of course is the same reason that the “first black Fannie Mae CEO” didn’t do hard time in prison where he belonged.  “Political correctness” is a demonic device by which liberals protect themselves – usually from going to prison where they ought to go.  He got a sweetheart deal basically so Republicans wouldn’t be accused of being racists by
Democrats who of course call them racists no matter what they do.  My main point is simply that it was Democrats, Democrats, DEMOCRATS who did this to us.

Fannie Mae was well politically-connected Democrats went to make millions as they bounced back and forth between “public” employment where they developed contacts and “private” crony capitalism to get rich.

Here’s the conclusion of New York Times financial markets writer Gretchen Morgenson about DEMOCRAT Jim Johnson:

Morgenson focuses on the managers of Fannie Mae, the government-supported mortgage giant. She writes that CEO James Johnson built Fannie Mae “into the largest and most powerful financial institution in the world.”

But in the process, Morgenson says, the company fudged accounting rules, generated big salaries and bonuses for its executives, used lobby and campaign contributions to bully regulators, and encouraged the risky financial practices that led to the crisis.

And of course DEMOCRAT Jim Johnson who got rich plundering Americans was an OBAMA Democrat.

Morgenson – again a New York Times writer and not someone from Fox News – said of Fannie Mae on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program on Monday, June 13: “Whatever Fannie Mae did, everybody else followed.”  And of course they all followed right into an economic Armageddon created by Democrats for Democrats.

But who got blamed?  Republicans, of course.  George Bush and Republicans were to Obama and the Democrats what Emmanual Goldstein was to Big Brother in 1984.  George Bush and Republicans were what the Jews were to Adolf Hitler.  Fascists always need a bogeyman.  And so the people who were truly to blame turned the people who tried futilely to stop them into the scapegoats.  All with the mainstream media’s complicity.

The analogy would be holding the police officer who tried but failed to catch the rapist for the rape of the woman rather than holding the actual rapist who raped her responsible.  But it was easier to say “This is the result of President Bush’s failed Republican policies” than it was to actually explain the facts to an enraged Attention Deficit Disorder-ridden ignorant pop culture – particularly when virtually no one in the biased mainstream media had any intention whatsoever of telling the truth.

Barack Obama – the ACORN community organizer who pushed these very America-killing policies – ran a demagoguing campaign promising to fix everything.

But has he?

How about a great big giant “NOT”???

What has Zero Obama done to fix that housing market that he helped collapse?  How about NOTHING???  After nearly three years of Obama, housing isn’t the worst since 2008; it’s gotten WAY WORSE than 2008 and is the worse since the Great Depression!!!  Obama started out with a terrible plan.  And we have terrible results to show for his terrible plan.  And yet this disgraceful fool actually keeps claiming he’s made things better!!!

Before you read this article, check out the “current account balance” compiled by the CIA.  Ours is a negative figure that dwarfs everyone else’s by so much it’s a joke.  Which is to say that Gross’s assessment is 1000% correct.

US Is in Even Worse Shape Financially Than Greece: Gross
Published: Monday, 13 Jun 2011 | 10:33 AM ET
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer

When adding in all of the money owed to cover future liabilities in entitlement programs the US is actually in worse financial shape than Greece and other debt-laden European countries, Pimco’s Bill Gross told CNBC Monday.

Much of the public focus is on the nation’s public debt, which is $14.3 trillion. But that doesn’t include money guaranteed for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which comes to close to $50 trillion, according to government figures.

The government also is on the hook for other debts such as the programs related to the bailout of the financial system following the crisis of 2008 and 2009, government figures show.

Taken together, Gross puts the total at “nearly $100 trillion,” that while perhaps a bit on the high side, places the country in a highly unenviable fiscal position that he said won’t find a solution overnight.

“To think that we can reduce that within the space of a year or two is not a realistic assumption,” Gross said in a live interview. “That’s much more than Greece, that’s much more than almost any other developed country. We’ve got a problem and we have to get after it quickly.”

Gross spoke following a report that US banks were likely to scale back on their use of Treasurys as collateral against derivatives and other transactions. Bank heads say that move is likely to happen in August as Congress dithers over whether to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, according to a report in the Financial Times.

The move reflects increasing concern from the financial community over whether the US is capable of a political solution to its burgeoning debt and deficit problems.

“We’ve always wondered who will buy Treasurys” after the Federal Reserve purchases the last of its $600 billion to end the second leg of its quantitative easing program later this month, Gross said. “It’s certainly not Pimco and it’s probably not the bond funds of the world.”

Pimco, based in Newport Beach, Calif., manages more than $1.2 trillion in assets and runs the largest bond fund in the world.

Gross confirmed a report Friday that Pimco has marginally increased its Treasurys allotment—from 4 percent to 5 percent—but still has little interest in US debt and its low yields that are in place despite an ugly national balance sheet.

“Why wouldn’t an investor buy Canada with a better balance sheet or Australia with a better balance sheet with interest rates at 1 or 2 or 3 percent higher?” he said. “It simply doesn’t make any sense.”

Should the debt problem in Greece explode into a full-blown crisis—an International Monetary Fund bailout has prevented a full-scale meltdown so far—Gross predicted that German debt, not that of the US, would be the safe-haven of choice for global investors.

America is going down because her stupid citizens wickedly voted for corrupt dishonest Democrat fools – the very fools who imploded our economy – to have complete power.  Nancy Pelosi took over dictatorial control in the House of Representatives, and Harry Reid took over the US Senate, in 2006.

Thanks to Obama, America is now worse off than Greece.  But that didn’t stop Obama from offering to bail out Greece.  Maybe it’s because George Soros is Greek; maybe because the American left has always adored the European-style socialism in spite of Thomas Jefferson’s warning that “the comparison of our governments with those of Europe is like a comparison of heaven and hell.”  Maybe because Obama simply WANTS hell for America.  But there you have it.

Republicans acknowledged they failed to live up to their values and spent too much.  But the last Republican budget (Fiscal Year 2007) passed in 2006 had only a $161 billion deficit.  The very next Democrat budget for FY 2008 had a deficit of $459 billion – nearly three times larger than the one they’d demonized Republicans for.  Then their FY-2009 budget dwarfed that deficit with a black hold of red ink deficit of $1.4 TRILLION.  That was more money than any government in the history of the world had ever contemplated.  But Democrats dwarfed that the very next year with a FY-2010 budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit.  And as for FY-2011, the Democrat Congress simply refused to perform its most basic duty of governance and didn’t even bother to pass a budget.  Republicans are now forced to do the last disgraced Democrat-controlled Congress’ job for them – and Democrats are demonizing them for it.

That’s how this game is played.  Democrats are fascist demagogues who shrilly launch into Republicans as they try to save the American people from unparalleled future suffering.  They are people who ROUTINELY demonize, demonize, demonize until THEY are the ones forced to call for the very things they demonized and tried to prevent from happening.  But by the time they react this time, just as before, it will be too late.

Try this on for size: our actual debt isn’t the $14 trillion we constantly hear about; it’s more like $200 trillion.  And even THAT gargantuan number doesn’t take into account the massive debts that all the liberal labor unions have amassed in state pensions (e.g., California’s public pension system has unfunded liabilities of $500 billion).  We cannot possibly hope to pay this – and yet Democrats demand more and more and more, and demagogue Republicans for even trying to cut millions when we need to cut TENS OF TRILLIONS or collapse.

Democrats run ads showing a look-a-like of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff; but they want every single senior citizen to die terribly as the Medicare system completely collapses while they refuse to do anything to fix it – as even Bill Clinton openly acknowledged.

We are going to end like the PIIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain- because we elected Democrat swine to ensure we perished like pigs.

Greece just got downgraded to the point where they are the lowest-rated currency in the history of the planet.  And it happened yesterday.

When that happens to us it will be the worst nightmare in history.  300 million Americans are going to go into an insanity of panic – and of course the violence will begin with the left.  If you don’t have an arsenal, someone will kick down your door and murder your whole family just to eat the food in your house.  And that hell on earth will be entirely because you trusted Democrats like Anthony Weiner to run your health care, your pension, your economy, your life.

I hope you vote in 2012 like your very LIFE was at stake in these elections.  Because this time it truly is.

Nancy Pelosi Blown Away Over Her Demagoguery Of Bush (When Unemployment Was 5% And Gas Was $3/Gal)

The following comes from CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, June 5, 2011:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, the unemployment figures came out and they were worse thanexpected.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yes.

BOB SCHIEFFER: As you know. Unemployment actually ticked up to 9.1 percent but this wasjust part of the story.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: A series of numbers that have been really, really bad lately, the number ofnew jobs created–

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –fifty-four thousand, far fewer than expected. Home prices hit a new low inthe first quarter of the year. Home sales are down again. Consumer confidence is down. And gas and food prices are up. I have to say, congresswoman, many of the experts thought therecovery would be well underway by now.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But it looks like we’re going backwards now, that– that we may be on the verge of a double-dip recession here. Do you– do you fear that’s what’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think we have to take a careful look at those figures to see. The unemployment numbers are obviously very disturbing. Are they an anomalyas some people suggest, because of the disasters in the South and the Midwest and the rest or is this something systemic that– that we have to accommodate in a different way? But all of ittranslates into hardship for America’s middle class and they’re feeling it very, very severely.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know Mitt Romney launched his presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And he said basically the President has made the economy worse. Here’s– let’sjust listen to what he said.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: This is now his economy. And what he has done has failed the American people. And the borrowing and the spending and the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, these–these numbers are his, they’re on his back and it’s why he’s going to lose.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So are you and the Democrats going to have to come up to an answer tothat?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well first of all, I don’t stipulate to that set of facts thatGovernor Romney just said. Mitt Romney has said because the fact is that this deficit came to us largely from President Bush. But it’s no use going there. We have to go forward. It’s a question of what — what is the President and what are those who aspire to be President going todo about the future to create jobs, good paying jobs. What are they going to do about theeducation of our children, the security of our seniors, the strengthening of the middle class,reducing the deficit– reducing the deficit?

BOB SCHIEFFER: But the President has been there two-and-a-half years.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean, why hadn’t he done that yet?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (overlapping): Well, he’s done a great deal of it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I think if he hadn’t taken the actions he did that thesituation would be worse. He pulled us from the brink of a financial crisis, from an economiccrisis. And now we have to dig out of a deep– a– a deep debt. And– and we have to also makeit clear that we’re not getting into this situation again.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were talking in a kind of a different way when unemployment went to five percent under George Bush. What you said then that Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices, gas is only three dollars a gallon then. And you said this morning,this is January 4, 2008, “This morning’s jobs report confirms what most Americans already knew–President Bush’s economic policies have failed our country’s middle class.” I mean, aren’t Republicans entitled to say, you know, if then gas was three dollars and unemploymentwas five percent and– and– and the President has failed the American people, don’t they have a right to say that this President has failed the American people?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, if you want to go into the past, we can talk about the past all you want. The public wants to know about the future. What are you going to do to create jobs, good-paying jobs in our country?

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well, what are you going to do?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, as I said what the President has done has improved the situation from where it may have been.

My question at this point would have been, “Has he improved it to 5% unemployment and three buck-a-gallon gas like it was when you were demonizing President Bush for being a failure?”

I also would have either repeated my question about how the Republicans had every right to lay into Obama as a failed president with unemployment at 9.1% and regular gas at $3.85 a gallon???  And when she didn’t bother to answer it a second time, I would have stated for the record that she refused to answer the question.

But they don’t let me handle such interviews.  Probably because I also would have reached across the table and grabbed her plastic face about the second time after she said “Hm” to the evidence of the devastating failure to the nation her president has been – with most of it occuring under HER House leadership.

Unemployment was 7.2% the day Obama assumed the presidency.  It’s been over 10%, and now 9.1% and heading upward.  2010 was the worst year in housing – EVER.  And 2011 is predicted to be the NEW worst year ever – and yet 2011 got  off to such a terrible start that it is incredibly even WORSE than “worst.”  The NEW news is that Obama’s bold leadership has resulted in the worst housing market since the Great Depression.  So it’s rather difficult to agree with Pelosi’s perspective on THOSE two most major of fronts.

In Fiscal Year 2007, Republicans passed their last budget before Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress.  It had a deficit for $161 billion – which Republicans have openly admitted was way too much.

And then the Democrats got their shot.  Their Fiscal Year 2008 budget ran a deficit of $459 billion.  Nearly THREE TIMES that of Republicans.  Then there was their doozy of a Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which ran a deficit of a mind-boggling $1.42 TRILLION.  Which had never before been seen in the history of the human race – until they topped it the very next year with their Fiscal Year 2010 budget deficit of $1.6 TRILLION.  And then they didn’t even BOTHER to try to pass a budget for Fiscal Year 2011 – which was THEIR responsibility.  To the extent that the Republicans and Obama are fighting over the budget, it is ENTIRELY the Democrats’ fault.  We should have already had a budget for this year, because they should have already passed one last year.

Oh, yeah, President Obama – the man Nancy Pelosi so lavishly praises above – had his own budget which he submitted for approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  And how did messiah’s budget do in the Democrat-controlled environment?  It was such a despicable piece of garbage that it failed 97-0 with not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it.

That’s not just bad.  It is a disgrace.  President Obama is a disgrace to America.

So between the Democrats not even bothering to pass a budget for 2011 and Obama submitting the worst budget in history, who you gonna blame???

Obviously, Republicans.  Because we live in a world that all too largely consists of propaganda.

Oh, by the way, the conversation between Schieffer and Pelosi turned to Medicare.  Pelosi was talking out of one of her plastic holes and of course demagoguing Republicans.  And Schieffer broke in and asked:

“Don’t you– let me just interrupt you. Don’t you have to, though, give some plan or some idea of how you’re going to reform Medicare because we all know it can’t sustain as it is?”

Because, you see, Medicare is just like spending, and just like the budgets that Democrats didn’t bother to pass.

MEDICARE IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT BY 2017 AT THE VERY EARLIEST (I say “earliest” because just recently they were saying it would be going bankrupt by 2019; are they going to revise the demise date forward again?).

AND DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN TO FIX IT.

Even Bill Clinton said to Rep. Paul Ryan of his fellow Democrats’ “Mediscare” tactic, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”  To which Rep. Paul Ryan responded, “My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to  happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were  putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out  there. You gotta get this thing moving.”

It’s going to be just like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco.  Republicans tried REPEATEDLY to reform these two housing mortgage goliaths for YEARS before they finally imploded the American economy in 2008.  Democrats fiercely resisted every single attempt.  As (again) even Bill Clinton acknowledged.  They blocked any chance to save the U.S. economy from the disaster that their policies had created years before – going back even into the Carter administration.

Democrats created the last mother of all crises (the housing mortgage market meltdown of 2008).  And they are already hard at work creating the next one (the impending Medicare implosion).

And only YOU can stop them.

[I feel like Smokey Bear pointing my bear paw and saying, “Only YOU can prevent Democrats.”  But there it is.]

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.

Gay Military: Something America Needs Like A Massive WikiLeak

Well, what would have been absolutely freaking unthinkable to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, has finally happened: we’ve got a gay military now.

I feared this from the outset of the Obama presidency and wrote it up in tones of irony and as much derision as I could muster:

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

It is absolutely stunning that we have these disastrous leaks revealing literally hundreds of thousands of pages of US government secrets at the hands of a homosexual soldier, and the very next thing we do is provide for the creation of another hundred thousand Private Bradley Mannings.

I would have thought the theft and release of 250,000 top secret documents would have made the “intelligentsia” pause about the wisdom of recruiting homosexuals who have a documented history of super-massive hissy fits.  But nope.  That would be the sane thing to do; and we can’t have that.  Onward ye proverbial lemmings!  Mush!  Mush!!!

Irony aside, and Bradley Manning aside, I thought this article from Townhall nailed the biggest reasons why this thing is going to be a disaster:

Obama’s New ‘Gay’ Force
Kevin McCullough

With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I’ve had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I’m especially sure that President Obama wouldn’t push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited “thing” for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don’t engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don’t, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn’t go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the “sissy” out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host “pride” events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation’s cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any “pride” event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, “every other nation on the planet already does it,” shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with those that serve in our nation’s armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama’s doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

Another set of questions by a Marine that no one ever asked about ending “Don’t Ask” can be found here.

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “sexual relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

It will be interesting to see if the infantry units – you know, the guys who basically do all of the fighting and most of the dying – are going to see significant drops in enlistment.  The Marine Corps will be an interesting place to look, since “infantry” enlistment figures are hard to find.

One thing I definitely don’t expect to see is huge swells in enlistment, as all of those homosexuals suddenly join up and fill the ranks.  If I’m wrong, you’ll see – based on statistics homosexuals offer – that the US military will suddenly have 143,000 more enlistments, as that 10% of the population that are homosexual suddenly rush to join up.  The thing is that these people didn’t want a gay military so they could join it; they wanted a gay military so they could ruin it.  Just like marriage.

The liberal ideologues whom we just appeased are not the people who will serve.  The people who will serve just got served an in-your-face insult.

The same people who want homosexuals in the military are the same people who think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a rock star for publishing every stolen classified American document he can get his filthy paws on.

This was a terrible and an immoral decision, which is all the more terrible and immoral for occurring during time of war.

The left always points to Europe or “other countries” and say that we should do what they do.  A few things are wrong with that: one of them emerges from Thomas Jefferson’s words, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?  Another emerges from the question, “WHAT PART OF EUROPE ARE YOU FROM? THE PART WHOSE ASS WE SAVED, OR THE PART WHOSE ASS WE KICKED?” To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe.  And yet another emerges from the question why European nations aren’t bothering to stand up and fight for freedom?  Europeans aren’t sending troops to Afghanistan; the troops they do send don’t fight; and most European Union nations are failing to spend even the minimum 2% of their GDP on defense, as required.  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?

Now we’re way down the path to becoming useless, pathetic and apathetic Europe, only with deodorant.

If homosexual men and women really wanted to serve their country – rather than further break down our nation and its social structures more than they already have – then they would have continued to volunteer and serve their country, rather than imposing their rabid homosexual agenda onto those who just want to defend their country.

It Was DEMOCRATS Who Blew Up Our Economy In 2008

I’ve been saying this for months: It was DEMOCRATS who destroyed our economy in 2008.

First of all, given all the times that you’ve heard the line, “The Republicans created this mess,” ask yourself a question: when was the last time you heard an explanation as to just precisely what the Republicans did to cause the disaster?

Don’t be a lemming and a tool; read up on how Democrats loaded up GSEs Fannie and Freddie with liberals, massively increased the government ownership of the mortgage industry, engaged in incredibly risky policies even as our housing market was beginning a cyclical downturn, and then refused to allow any regulations or reform whatsoever:

With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

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

Want To Know Why Your Economy Blew Up?

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

This Blame Bush Crap Has Just GOT To End

And here’s the latest fact and the latest explanation as to just how Democrats blew up our economy:

The quotes that explain the entire financial meltdown
posted at 12:10 pm on October 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

For those who want a smoking gun to show the genesis of the financial collapse, this short sequence from a longer video I posted this week will do it. Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced a settlement of a lending discrimination complaint with Accubanc, a Texas lender whose prerequisites for mortgages came under attack from “community organizers” at the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and the city of Dallas. I clipped out this sequence to underscore its importance:

Watch the video.

CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.

Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?

CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.

Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?

CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.

CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …

Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster.  Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market.  Even while imposing risk standards on lenders, Cuomo admits that he expects a higher default rate on the new loans — which is why the lenders didn’t want to write them in the first place.

In other words, the CRA didn’t get used to fight discrimination, but to force lenders to give money to high-risk borrowers for political purposes.  And Cuomo knew it.

That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse.  However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem.  When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans.  Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.

While Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi keep blaming “greed” for the collapse, it was Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd building that “greed” into the system in order to drive the subprime lending market.  And it was Democrats like Frank, Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Lacy Clay who suggested that regulators like Armando Falcon were racists for blowing the whistle on the Ponzi scheme they created.

The Democrats decided, as Michelle says, that mortgages were a civil right, and wouldn’t cost the American taxpayers a dime.  How well is that working out, America?  And now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this: Do you want the nation’s economic policies run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank for the next two years?

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The problem is that we aren’t a moral or religious people anymore.

We’ve become a bad people.  And bad people allow a climate in which lies dominate, and then they believe the lies they are told.

And that is why we allowed a mainstream media to fabricate an entire culture of lies, and then we believed their narrative that Republicans (who hadn’t been in power for two years in the Congress) were the party to blame.  We blamed Bush – who tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the economic meltdown just in 2008 alone.  And Bush had called for reform and regulation of the GSEs 34 times since 2001.  And we put the very Democrats who blew up our economy by refusing to allow those reforms or regulations until after it was too late in charge of the economy that they ruined.

It was Democrats and the Government Sponsored Enterprise system Democrats created (i.e., GSEs Fannie and Freddie) that created the financial disaster; just as it is Democrats who are in total control of our government who are CONTINUING to undermine our economy now.

We gave Democrats total power.  And in just two years they have so destroyed our economy and our health care system that we may never be able to recover.